ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL. (Hansard, 27 April 1926)

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND

My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think there is very little that I need say to your Lordships. The Army Act comes to an end on the 30th of this month and, as your Lordships know, this Bill merely re-enacts it in the customary form and proposes a number of amendments. The majority of the amendments are for the purpose of clarifying the Act and simplifying procedure and do not call for any special explanation or comment. There are only three clauses to which your Lordships' attention might be drawn. Clause 9 remedies the anomaly in the Army and Air Force Acts as they stand at present, that a soldier or airman who is exempt from trial for fraudulent enlistment by reason of his having served for three years in an exemplary manner may in certain circumstances forfeit more service than if he has not completed three years service and is tried by Court-Martial.

Clause 12 is to enable Air Force officers to preside or sit as members on Courts-Martial under the Army Act in cases where military officers with the necessary rank and service are not available. The converse of this provision already exists in the Air Force Act (Section 48, paragraph 10). Such provision is necessary where, as in the case of the Iraq Levies, which are subject to the Army Act, military officers with the required quailfications 953 are sometimes not available owing to the limited number serving in the area. This Amendment enables Air Force officers with the necessary seniority and rank to serve in place of Army officers.

Clause 13 enables the Regulars and any portion of the Territorial Army which has been called up, to be billeted in an emergency under Section 108A before the embodiment of the Territorial Army. The object of this Amendment is to provide for the steps that may have to be taken during a precautionary period. It is complementary to and consequential upon a similar amendment which was made last year in the Air Force Act. As I informed your Lordships, apart from the amendments to which I have referred, the remaining clauses are merely of a clarifying nature and require no special comment.

§ VISCOUNT HALDANE

My Lords, I have looked into this Bill with some care and have scanned its clauses. I do not think that there is anything in the amendments, which of course will be incorporated in the law for the year, that your Lordships need trouble about. The object of the Bill, as your Lordships know, is to take the Army Act, which annually continues in vitality as it is enacted from year to year en bloc, and amend it to some extent, and the Act so amended will continue in force for twelve months from April 30. That is done with this Bin, and all the amendments that have been made this year are amendments which are in themselves, I think, good, but they are of no importance.

There are two important topics that were discussed elsewhere and have been discussed outside of which the noble Duke, quite rightly, made no mention, because there were no Amendments moved in this House directed to them. One of those topics is the death penalty. I do not think anybody in this House desires to move any Amendment about that. The death penalty is practically never inflicted in time of peace and in time of war it is inflicted in comparatively few cases. I think that during the whole of the four years that the War lasted there were only 300 cases of death penalties, and when you consider that 954 they arose in connection with 5,000,000 men you will agree that it is not at all a large proportion. What the death penalty is inflicted for is cowardice in the face of the enemy, treason and great crimes of that kind, which, when they are committed, have the effect of imperilling the lives in many cases of the soldiers who have maintained fidelity to their obligations. Therefore they are very serious offences. There being no Amendment here and as there would be division of opinion it is not unnatural that the noble Duke should not have entered upon the subject.

The other point is the use of the troops in aid of the civil power when there are disturbances, such as riots and so on. The objection to that rests upon a double misapprehension. First of all, it seems to be thought that there is some military obligation to serve on such occasions. There is no military obligation; there is only the obligation that affects every citizen to go to the aid of the civil power if called upon. He is generally called on by the magistrate, and it is a serious thing when he is called on by the magistrate. The magistrate is not entitled to exercise any more force than is necessary to put down disturbance and, when he calls on the soldier, he is calling in a stronger force than the civilian force ordinarily is. Consequently it has been laid down—I laid it down myself when Secretary of State and gave evidence before the Select Committee—that the officer is not bound to obey the magistrate. He must exercise his own discretion, and if he thinks that the magistrate is calling upon him to do more than is necessary, then he is not bound to go and take his troops.

Of course, he always will pay very great attention to what the magistrate says and, normally, in the past, he has gone to obey the magistrate's orders, but a great confusion arose because of a misreport of the great case which took place at Manchester on the occasion of the Peterloo riots. A wrong head-note was given to the decision and that crept into all the military books. For a long time there was great confusion of thought and-the result was that doctrines were laid down in the Army which gave rise to great comment from outside. All that is put right now and there is no substantial 955 question. Therefore we need not concern ourselves with it and I see no reason why your Lordships should not pass this Bill.