HC Deb 28 April 1952 vol 499 cc1171-82

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 37, leave out, "thirtieth day of April," and insert: thirty-first day of July.

11.15 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Head.]

Mr. John Strachey (Dundee, West)

We on this side are very glad that the Secretary of State has agreed to this postponement. Quite frankly, we could never see why he resisted it either before he spoke, or, with respect, why he resisted after he spoke. In some ways, it is the most valuable of the changes which Parliament is now making in the Act; it is most important that this date should be postponed, and it is, of course, to give time to the Committee which the House is setting up, to go into this Act from top to bottom. It is a great satisfaction to us on this side that, after a protracted struggle, we have been able to secure this important alteration.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

I do not wish to delay the House, but I would like to point out the deplorable time-wasting which has taken place as a result of the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in this matter. This was the Amendment to which all the arguments were put in a perfectly clear manner in this House, and we went, although I have not the record with me, until seven or eight o'clock before we disposed of the Amendment at all. Then, an hon. Member opposite—I cannot remember who—said that my hon. Friends had been responsible for obstructing the work of the Committee on the Army Act. Of course, that cannot be so.

If the Government obtains Amendments by way of another place while the Government have opposed them here, then it cannot be claimed that there has been any degree of obstruction in this House, and I think this shows the fantastic attitude of the other side to oppose anything on its merits. Personally, I am glad that there is some agreement on this matter, for, apart from other issues, it should teach right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that they should not go away to party meetings when there is a matter of importance down for consideration, but that they should stop to consider the merits of the matter.

Here, they have wasted half a day by refusing to listen to the arguments put from this side, and have had inserted into the Act the very alteration for which we asked; and now they are wasting more time by asking us to vote in a different way from that which they asked us to vote at an earlier date. It will not be denied that there is a tremendous amount of business left for this Session, and perhaps one should ask the Patronage Secretary to instruct his colleagues that this is not the best way to get on with our work, to instruct them that it is not the best way to resist, for hours and hours at a time, an Amendment which, in any event, they intend to make in another place. Such behaviour does not show strength, but only confusion of purpose.

I was going to say to the Secretary of State that, in his present position, he is no doubt a student of the works of Napoleon I. He will recall a remark of Napoleon that unity of purpose is the secret of great successes. Let me commend that to him and his right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary. Before they introduce a Measure they ought to decide exactly what it is they wish to get out of it. They ought to come to an arrangement; they ought to listen to arguments, and they ought to try, above all, in these difficult days, to save the time of the House. They can do that by listening to the arguments that come from this side of the House and accepting them in the House, and by not insisting that the whole matter should be submitted to the overlords somewhere else before we come to a decision on it. If this House is to be only a kind of proxy body from which everything has to be submitted and altered somewhere else, we shall be in a ridiculous position.

It is very satisfactory that this Amendment should be made. I think the whole House is now in agreement about it. The only people to vote against it were the Secretary of State's hon. Friends whom he led through the Lobby against it last time. If they have now all changed their views, I hope that after a few words from some of my hon. Friends we shall be able to get the matter dealt with satisfactorily.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his homily on wasting time. He at least should be a connoisseur on that subject.

Mr. Bing

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that on this Bill either I or any of my hon. Friends wasted time on any Amendment? If so, on which?

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

On a point of order. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in addressing the House twice without the leave of the House?

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman moved the Motion only formally. He is entitled to speak to it.

Mr. Head

I was merely saying that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) should be a connoisseur on the subject of wasting time. If I were to go into all the occasions I should be still further wearying the House and wasting time.

Mr. Bing

Give only one.

Mr. Head

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me if I had read the works of Napoleon. I will only say that I do not think Napoleon said, "God is on the side of the Bing battalion", and I hope that will prove true, too.

I am much interested in the somewhat synthetic surprise of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the change between our initial attitude to this Amendment and the fact that we have now introduced it. I would refer them to a very experienced ex-sergeant-major on their own Front Bench, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who, I am sure, could inform them that to have a postponement of this date after a Select Committee has been appointed to thrash out the matter and to have it when the Army Act in its original state is capable of some 900 new Clauses, are very different matters for any Leader of the House who wishes to get Parliamentary business through the House. I am certain both the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend, who evinced this synthetic surprise, are well aware of that.

This Amendment is consequential in the sense that an agreement was come to in the House, and we hope a Select Committee will be appointed to go into this matter and to settle it in a satisfactory way. It is some satisfaction to myself, and I hope to the House as a whole, to believe that by next year we shall have an Army Act which is up to date and worthy of both the Army and the Air Force, and which I hope will go through the House with the good will and assistance of both sides.

Mr. Wigg

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman still has not learned his lesson. He ought to have come down here and admitted that he made a mistake. If he would only take the trouble to read the debate that took place in the first two or three hours of the Committee stage he would find that my hon. and right hon. Friends asked him time and time again to accept this Amendment; they pleaded with him to take 15 months so that we could inquire into this matter and next year make an up to date job of the Army Act.

Mr. Head

As the hon. Gentleman is deploying that argument, it might assist him if I told him that at the time we discussed this Amendment the question of appointing a Select Committee to go into the whole matter had not arisen. Therefore, the inevitable prospect was that next year we would have the same out of date, antiquated Army Act to discuss, with the same immense potentiality for taking a great deal of time.

Mr. Wigg

It would have been quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman during the debate to have suggested the appointment of a Select Committee. We were not as ambitious as that. All we pleaded for was some time next year. We knew the job could not be done in 1952. Therefore, we suggested to the Government the time extension. It was our view—certainly it was mine—that it is the job of the Opposition to see that the Army Act is kept up to date. I said so during the debate, and the right hon. Gentleman did not contradict what I had to say.

Mr. Head

The hon. Gentleman and his party had six years to do it in.

Mr. Wigg

The right hon. Gentleman will not learn. It is the job of the Opposition. If he would only study what took place during the seventeenth century he would realise that a standing Army inside the framework of an annual Army Act is a safeguard of our liberties. The House would be very unwise indeed ever to let go of that hold on our affairs.

We knew this job could not be done in 1952. Therefore, we asked for additional time so that the job could be tackled by 31st July, 1953. What the right hon. Gentleman would not do when we first debated the matter—and, indeed, what he will not do tonight—was, he would not listen to our arguments. I have not the slightest doubt that when this matter came up the War Office officials said to him, "Do not listen to that. We do not want to extend this date. After all, it has always been 30th April. Therefore, it must always be 30th April."

So he steadfastly refused either to listen to our arguments or to ask his officials for the arguments with which to support the advice they were giving him. He came down here and, from the time the debate opened until, I think, the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure, refused to listen to our arguments or to put forward any counter arguments against what we said. As our debate lengthened the right hon. Gentleman found himself in the position of having to listen to what we had got to say, because he realised he was not going to get his Bill. Only then did he change his mind.

All I am doing is backing up what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said, that what we want from the right hon. Gentleman is some understanding, some willingness to listen to some of the arguments put from this side of the House. If he does listen, he will find we shall be able to give him even more substantial advice than he claimed to give us when he was on the opposite side of the House. We have already given him some very valuable advice. I am only sorry he came down here tonight to show not the slightest appreciation of the time and effort we have spent on his education.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Thoroughly ungrateful.

Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

The explanation of the Secretary of State for War is, as I think he must have begun to realise by now, quite unsatisfactory, and bodes very ill for the Select Committee that is to be appointed. If the Secretary of State is to adopt the attitude that he is always right and that the War Office is always right, and that what we say is always wrong, I do not see much emerging from the Select Committee. The Secretary of State must realise perfectly well now that he was quite wrong to resist this Amendment when it was put forward originally at the Committee stage. The argument then was not about whether there should be a Select Committee or not, but what was the best time in the Parliamentary year for an adequate discussion of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

11.30 p.m.

That argument stands now. Substantially, that is the reason why we have this Amendment and why it has been accepted. It is regrettable that the Solicitor-General is not here, because he gave it as his opinion that it was quite impossible to incorporate the Amendment in the Bill. We were told that there were great difficulties about it; it would involve a lot of research, a Bill of Rights, and that sort of thing. The fact is that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who was the draftsman of the Amendment, has been proved right and the Solicitor-General has been proved wrong, and it is a pity that the Solicitor-General is not here to confess that fact. The credit for this Amendment goes to my right hon. Friend, who moved it, and my hon. and learned Friends, who originated it, and the time wasting was caused entirely by the stubborn and arrogant resistance of the Front Bench opposite over a period of four or five hours when, because they were determined not to carry out a thorough-going reform of the Army Act, they were determined not to have this Amendment.

It would have been quite easy for the Secretary of State to have admitted tonight that that was the situation and that they have learned from the experience of the Committee stage not merely that an exhaustive reform of the Army Act would be a good thing but also that the Amendment is a good thing, and, indeed, that the arguments used by my hon. Friends on the Committee stage were correct and the arguments used by the Minister were incorrect. If the Minister is not going to make such admissions as that and is not going to adopt a more reasonable attitude then, as I say, it bodes ill for the progress of this Select Committee, and the reform of the Army Act will certainly take a long time.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham, East)

I should not have intervened in the debate had it not been for a rather unfortunate interjection by the Secretary of State during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). If I remember rightly, the interjection was, "You had six years in which to do it." The Amendment which we are discussing is part of a scheme which will make it possible for us to undertake a thoroughgoing reform of the Army Act, and the point of the interjection was to suggest that such a reform might have been carried out by the late Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

That interjection, and the applause for it which comes from the benches opposite, shows that the right hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him have still not grasped the real nature of the problem—and that is rather alarming. During the tenure of office of the late Government, a number of very substantial changes in the whole nature of the Army had to be carried out.

Mr. Head

Changes in National Service.

Mr. Stewart

National Service in peace-time in this country as apparently the right hon. Gentleman recalls, and the building of a new type of Army around that fact; the re-creation of the Territorial Army, and reforms in court-martial procedure. All these necessary and proper measures led up to a situation in which it was necessary to carry out a thorough-going reform of the Army Act, but that could not in any sense have been carried out until those measures had been completed. That is why it is absurd to suggest that this reform of the Army Act should have been carried through earlier.

Another reason, which I shall not press too far because I should be out of order, was that the late Government had a great many important and beneficial pieces of legislation to get through whereas this Government have only a limited amount of legislation, and that is of rather in- different quality. It should also be remembered that it is not so much a question of the late Government having had six years but of the late Opposition having had six years in which to press for the reform of the Army Act. As has been said by my hon. Friend, this is peculiarly the province of the Opposition. The whole device of the annual Army Act is to enable this House, and particularly those hon. Members who do not agree with the Government in power, to stretch out a hand and oblige the Government to give attention to certain matters.

In my judgment it would be entirely in accordance with the nature of the Constitution if the Opposition had seen fit to delay the Army Act to compel the Government to give attention to many other matters besides the administration of the Army. It is for that reason that we have the annual Army Act to enable the Opposition to exercise control over the Government of the day. So it was not the late Government that lost any opportunity in this matter; it was the late Opposition. We must hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will grasp these lessons. After all, it is all very well when he sits on this bench to be merely the party mouthpiece—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

The hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Stewart

I will draw my remarks to a close. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was on this side of the House, could act as the party mouthpiece—

Mr. Head

The hon. Member is now acting as the party mouthpiece.

Mr. Stewart

—but when he took on his present high office we hoped he would begin to put the considerations of the nation and of the Army above the scoring of mere party points, such as the one he endeavoured to score just now. It is a little disconcerting, on the eve of the setting up of the Select Committee, to find that he is still keeping to the party point rather than considering the more serious and more important issues that lie before the House.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

I would not be bothering the House at this late hour if the Government had showed any signs of having learned the lesson which they ought to have learned through this incident, and which they will go on having the opportunity of learning as this Parliament goes on. Let us look at the position. What the Government have to learn is that if this country is to be administered properly proper attention must be given to administrative legislation and proper time afforded for it.

In this case the whole trouble for the delay and the loss of Parliamentary time resulted primarily from the fact that this Bill was brought before the House undigested and uncomprehended by the Government, and without the Government having thought out the consequences of their action. The fact was plain to be seen without the Leader of the House deciding to call it off. The Amendments were down on the Order Paper. What was the difficulty in the Government not seeing clearly what the position was and starting off with a Select Committee without any delay? It was because of the ignorance with which the Leader of the House has handled not only this but—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman has got beyond the Amendment, has he not?

Mr. Paget

With great respect, I am dealing with an Amendment that was resisted by the Government for hours and hours and has now been re-introduced by them in another place. I feel that we are entitled to ask for an explanation of that complete change and to suggest what the real explanation is. That real explanation is that they failed to understand what their business was. There was no reason whatever—

Mr. Head

The hon. and learned Gentleman does not believe it.

Mr. Paget

The right hon. Gentleman says I do not believe it. Which bit does he not believe?

Mr. Head

I pointed out certain facts in my opening remarks and the hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware of them. If he is not he should grow up parliamentarily. Supposing he were Leader of the House, sitting on this side, supposing he had an Army and an Air Force Act to introduce annually, and supposing between the end of the Estimates in March he had a period up to the end of July for this discussion, and supposing he had a full legislative programme, would he welcome the annual arrival of that Act with its great opportunities of filibustering to prevent the other business being got through? Of course he would not if there was a Select Committee to clear it up. It is a different matter when the hon. and learned Gentleman, with the bogus ingenuousness which he is now manufacturing, starts scoring party points—he is doing it reasonably well—for he knows no Leader of the House, until such a Committee was appointed, could possibly allow such an opportunity for clogging all Government business up to the summer Recess.

Mr. Paget

The right hon. Gentleman compares the Leader of the House, who is highly incompetent, with the ex-Leader of the House who is highly competent. What would the ex-Leader of the House have done? He has enough Parliamentary sense to realise when he is beaten, and as soon as be saw the Amendments on the Paper he would have known that this was a matter which had to be dealt with by consultation with the Opposition and by their consent, and he would have proposed a Select Committee. He would have done it before the House wasted three days of Parliamentary time, not afterwards.

That is where our complaint lies. Three days were wasted before the facts were driven home, and the Leader of the House appreciated the position. The scope of the Amendments were to be seen by studying the Order Paper. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of the opportunity then? Because of the arrogant idea which this Government have been showing that they can ride roughshod over the Opposition. The Opposition have got rights in this House. I hope that this occasion has taught the Government Front Bench a little wisdom, and something of the facts of Parliamentary life, which they did not know when these three days began. The trouble is that this Government are not run by their Front Bench, but by a committee of backbenchers upstairs, who entirely lack—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. and learned Gentleman should confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Paget

I will not take up further time. I will merely urge that the Government Front Bench try to educate their back benchers in their constitutional responsibilities and do not make too great a mess of the administrative machine which, for a temporary period, has been entrusted to them.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons (Brierley Hill)

As one who has been in all the skirmishes in this engagement I do not think we should accept this Amendment without saying that a great deal depends on the spirit in which the Government approach these matters. This debate would have been entirely unnecessary had the Secretary of State for War said, in a generous way, that the "shock troops" of a few weeks ago had secured a real victory and as a result the House was being asked to accept the Amendment as a token of the defeat of the Government. Instead, we find the Government in a mood of arrogance, a "take it or leave it" mood; a mood of saying, "We are determined to stand on our dignity and not admit that we were ever wrong. The Opposition were wrong for daring to raise these questions."

Yet the Opposition were only doing their duty. The Opposition of the six previous years had failed to do theirs. It is in my recollection that during the debates on the Army Bill in those six years more speeches came from the Government side than the Opposition side of the House. I recall my colleagues keeping the House for several hours while they were doing the job of the Opposition. Surely the present Government cannot complain of their having an efficient Opposition. As a result of the work and research carried out by the Opposition they are nearer to the modern Army than are members of the Government.

Among the present Opposition are representatives of other ranks and we have been able to breathe real life and virility into these debates. Surely there should be recognition of the great service we have rendered to the country and the Army, especially to the citizens of this country who become liable for military service at the age of 18, whether they want to or not.

Before parting with this Amendment we might ask whether the Select Com- mittee is nearing appointment. We do not want to go to all this trouble—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

We cannot discuss the Select Committee on the Amendment.

Mr. Simmons

With respect, if we are to pass an Amendment we ought to know the object for which we are passing it. The object of this Amendment is to extend the period of time in order that there shall be time between now and the next discussion of the Army Bill for a Select Committee to be appointed and report so that the next Army Bill can be modernised and amended in accordance with their report. I was asking for a distinct assurance that the Select Committee is in process of being appointed and that it will get on with the job as quickly as possible. I would also renew my plea that there should be adequate representation of other ranks on this committee and especially the lowest rank of all, the jolly old "P.B.I."