HC Deb 07 November 1962 vol 666 cc965-8
28. Mr. Lipton

asked the Secretary of State for War how many men are being released from the Army to fight Parliamentary by-elections; and how much each of them would have to pay to obtain his discharge by purchase.

29. Mr. Morris

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of soldiers who have applied for release to fight the forthcoming by-elections.

Mr. Profumo

I have approved the applications of three soldiers for discharge to fight three separate Parliamentary by-elections.

If the three soldiers whose release has been authorised had purchased their discharge, the cost would have been £203 10s., £150 and £125 respectively.

Mr. Lipton

Will the Minister agree that this is a selfish wangle, which is unfair to other Service men who are honourably carrying out their obligations, and a nuisance to the electors upon whom they are about to descend? Will he not consider a reversion to the 1945 practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] —when we got three weeks' leave of absence without pay and reported back for duty if we did not get in?

Mr. Profumo

With regard to the last part of the supplementary question. I suppose that the House realises that if we were to try to revert to the practice of 1945, it would mean legislation. The emergency regulations have come to an end, and it would mean legislation. I only wish to point that out. I quite agree that anyone who resorts to this kind of subterfuge is taking a very unfair advantage over his comrades, but, frankly, I would rather see a few dodgers escape their obligations than that one man who genuinely wanted to enter this House should be prevented from doing so.

Mr. Morris

Would not the Minister agree that the nomination papers at Chippenham seem to be getting top-heavy, as already there are three or four Service candidates? Can he tell the House whether the final discharge papers which are issued to soldiers who want to become candidates are issued before or after their nomination papers have to go in? Is it possible that, once a soldier is discharged, he can withdraw his Parliamentary candidature, and thereby effect his discharge without any cost?

Mr. Profumo

First, the discharge papers have to go through before he is nominated. We have to discharge the soldier first. The Army is responsible for only one candidate in the Chippenham by-election, and he has already been discharged. One of the difficulties, technically, I suppose, is that it is perfectly possible, once a man has been discharged, for him to decide not to stand for Parliament. This is one of the quandaries in which someone in my position is placed. I can only go on good faith, and it is very difficult to decide whether the bona fidesare there or not. My right hon. Friends and I have taken the view that, as long as this does not become a very general abuse, we ought to allow the benefit of the doubt, even if one or two bad eggs get out.

Mr. Wigg

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between the 1945 position and now is that these are soldiers of the Regular Army, whereas in 1945 the position was not so? Would he not agree that it would be very dangerous indeed if a soldier or officer of the Regular Army, having fought an election, was required to rejoin, because this would be bringing the Army right into politics? Will he, in any mature consideration of this problem, stick to his view—that one or two dodgers are more acceptable than the introduction of the Army into politics—which is absolutely right?

Mr. Profumo

I am very glad to find the hon. Gentleman on my side in this matter. I should say to the House that in view of the fact that, quite obviously, this concession is being abused, I am consulting my right hon. Emends concerned on whether some action may be necessary if this goes on. I should make that plain.

Mr. Kershaw

Can my right hon. Friend be more explicit in reference to the answer in which he said that he did not want to prevent anybody from standing for Parliament? Surely, there would be no question of that if they were compelled to go back if not elected?

Mr. Profumo

What I was trying to point out was that, in the absence of further legislation—whether this would be right or wrong—I have no power to do this, because a soldier is absolved from his contract once he is released from the Army. Unless he applies to rejoin—and I should want some convincing about this —I have no hold on him at all.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Whereas, naturally, nobody wants to stop anybody from standing for election to Parliament, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is certainly a danger, with a General Election approaching, of figures being reached which would be quite intolerable? Would he not think of legislation, which I concede is necessary, to provide that a man can be released to fight an election, but that he should, if he fails, go back? That does not seem to me, with all respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), to be bringing the Army into politics. A soldier can have political opinions in the Army, but that is not necessarily bringing the Army into politics.

Mr. Profumo

I do not know, when the right hon. Gentleman refers to a General Election, whether or not he is frightened of a vast number of Tory soldiers coming forward to fight Socialist seats. I think that is hypothetical. That is not what we are facing at the moment. I have given an undertaking that if the abuse develops further, we shall have to look at it again. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not an abuse."] It is an abuse. One soldier who has been allowed out has publicly admitted that it was a "fiddle". That is an abuse, even if only a small one. If this develops further we might have to take some steps, but that is all I am prepared to say at this stage.

Mr. M. MacMillan

On a point of order. Should not the Secretary of State declare an interest in this matter? Is it not right that he came into this House during the war from the Army?

Mr. Speaker

Members do not have to declare an interest, even though they have an interest, in relation to Questions.