HL Deb 27 October 1943 vol 129 cc396-406

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what are the regulations with regard to the officers and men in the Armed Forces while on leave attending political meetings; and whether they are permitted to take part if in plain clothes; and also move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing on the Paper in my name I should like to state that I have only recently been studying the regulations governing the rights of members of the Armed Forces to take part in politics. I say "recently" because in the course of some eighteen months is the Army and a subsequent similar period in the Navy I have been rather following the example of Nelson and turning a blind eye to the regulations; or perhaps I should rather say that I am in the position of the Ancient Mariner: Like one, that on a lonesome road Doth walk in fear and dread, And having once turned round walks on, And turns no more his head; Because he knows, a frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread. That has rather been my position. There have been lately Courts Martial—in particular one referred to recently in another place—and I have therefore fallen to studying the regulations, because while I dislike dead and unburied regulations I have even more horror of live ones on this subject.

I will not weary your Lordships by reading all the regulations I have found —they are more or less the same for the three Services—but I will just give a short précis of the naval regulations. No officer or man may take any active part in any political organization. He may not speak or publish or distribute any political matter, or take any part in politics in any other manner. By a Fleet Order of 1941 political meetings and speeches are banned in dockyards and naval establishments. That is more or less the position in regard to all the Forces. The position with regard to Members of Parliament varies slightly. They have leave to attend to their Parliamentary duties, but there is no exact regulation as to what their Parliamentary duties are. A naval regulation made in 1939 gives them permission to address meetings only within their constituencies, and permission to write to the newspapers which is restricted to their local newspapers. That regulation rather limits those of us who are in the Armed Forces. I am afraid we should have to talk only to ourselves. However, that is the position now as regards the written regulations.

They frighten me rather, because I personally, in the course of my Army career, committed various crimes under these regulations rendering me liable to some three years in the cells, and in my naval career crimes which might result in my being dismissed my ship and indeed dismissed the Service. Luckily the regulations do not appear to be enforced in that way. It is true that military police have been known to enter meetings and stop members of the Armed Forces asking questions. It is true that you can any day watch the military police at Hyde Park Corner, for example, turn away serving men even if they are only listening to speeches, presumably in case one of them should be so unwise as to ask a question or capture a soap box. That is not the whole story. There are punishing powers both direct by military punishment and indirect through various security bureaux which can advise that a member of the Armed Forces be removed from the Armed Forces. Those powers have been very little used, so that the greater part of all the offenders, including myself, have escaped scot free. In fact the regulations, although as I say they are not entirely dead, are very little enforced.

It is of the utmost importance at the present time that everybody in this country should know what they want to happen in this country and in the world after the war. I do not think anybody will disagree with that. It is of far greater importance to those in the Armed Forces, because they have fought for it and they are entitled, one might almost say, to a priority voice in what happens after the war. They can only use that voice if they first of all debate what they want, if they attend meetings to hear what everybody has to say. In fact they can only do it by free meeting and debate. It is not suggested that they should quarrel in any way with the regulations and the proceedings of their own Services. They have very good methods through normal Service channels of discussing any grievance, and no other channels will give any satisfaction to the men in the Forces at all in regard to Service grievances. It is only suggested that they should be able to do what any citizen can do, and in fact must do if we are to have a reasonable world at the end of this war—that is to study what is wanted, debate what is wanted, and decide on what is wanted, so that they can tell those who will make the necessary laws.

That, I suggest, is very necessary for the Armed Forces. Indeed, I might say it is much more necessary for the Armed Forces than it is for the ordinary citizens. As to whether the man should be dressed in his uniform when he does this, that is a question which I should not like to stress. I think, however, that it is fitting in this connexion to call attention to the fact that, at this period of the war, very few of the rank and file of the Armed Forces have any civilian clothing left. If they did leave any at home, by now either their wives or moths have had it. This means that the clothing has either been eaten or converted into something else. But really I see no harm in what I have suggested, provided the men stick to debating politics as citizens and do not speak on Service matters. It will, of course, be suggested that the position would be terrible if, for example, an officer, when speaking, was heckled by a serving man or vice versa. I say in answer to that that any officer who can- not be heckled, or who is incapable of dealing with heckling without serious results following, is not fit to be an officer, and that the correct thing to do is not to stop the debates in uniform but to remove any such officers who cause trouble by misbehaving themselves in debate.

It is no use saying that the Armed Forces do not wish to discuss politics. We have had that answer put forward in another place. It is perfectly true that the ordinary man in the ranks of any Armed Forces does not spend his time talking politics. He is much more interested in many other subjects. But it is very true that the moment anything of importance occurs, such as the issuing of the Beveridge Report—that is a supreme example of the sort of thing I mean—the men in the ranks do debate it. They debate such things Quite heatedly. They want opportunities to debate them still more, but they cannot get those opportunities while the present regulations stand, either dead or alive. As I have said, they do debate, but under the existing regulations they are liable to be jumped on at any moment for doing so. I would like to suggest, if I may, that these regulations be modified. This could quite easily be done without sacrificing the very valuable principle embodied in the regulations. We know that the regulations were meant, in times gone by, to keep the Armed Forces out of politics. We have seen what happens in other countries when the Armed Forces do enter upon politics. But the trouble has invariably been that they have entered upon politics as Armed Forces, and not as civilians. Now our modern Army does not regard itself as an armed force; it regards itself as a collection of civilians who are in uniform because they have to get rid of a pest, and when that pest has been got rid of they will discard their uniforms with considerable joy, and return to their civilian lives. It is because that is the idea in the minds of our men that it would be safe to abolish the regulations to which I have referred.

Then there is the point regarding security, and the question of speaking on Service matters. The regulations, I suggest, could quite easily be altered so that members of the Forces could speak on any political subject, and take an active part in politics when on leave—that is not in any such way as to interfere with their service as Armed Forces. The regulations should give them full latitude to do that provided that they make no mention whatever of Service matters. So I would like to suggest, if I may, that the regulations be altered in order that the men can speak and that a more democratic state of affairs may prevail in the Armed Forces. I beg to move.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD BRUNTISFIELD)

My Lords, I have listened with interest and attention to the speech of the noble Viscount opposite, but I must confess that the first part of his remarks left me in some confusion of mind. He began by saying that, in view of his own black record, and having studied the regulations, he was in a state of apprehension as to what might happen to him. He then went on to say that so far as he could ascertain the number of cases in which action has been taken against members of the Forces for contravening these regulations was practically negligible, if not non-existent. Therefore I find it a little difficult to reconcile the two thoughts that appear to be travelling through his mind. Perhaps if I might state the position as the Service Departments sec it, and describe the results of the policy which the three Services follow, I shall be able to reassure the noble Viscount and, I hope, persuade him that the necessity that he sees for a revision of these regulations does not really exist.

The noble Viscount read to your Lordships what he admitted was a précis of the regulations, so far as the Navy is concerned, which covers this subject, but for the purposes of record and accuracy I hope that your Lordships will not object if I give you the full text. The relevant regulation is Clause I of Article 17A of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions which reads as follows: No officer or man is permitted to take any active part in the affairs of any political organization or party, either by acting as a member of a candidate's election committee, or by speaking in public or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the political purposes of any such organization or party, or in any other manner. As the noble Viscount said, the regulations which obtain in the two sister Services are almost identical.

The fundamental principle underlying these regulations is that a sailor, soldier or airman at all times owes a primary duty of loyalty to the Crown and the Government of the day, and these regulations are therefore framed to restrict his participation in political activities in a way which might involve him in conflict with this duty. Whilst the primary duty of a member of the Armed Forces is, however, to the Crown, the Service Departments fully recognize that he has personal rights and obligations as a citizen, and they therefore seek, in interpreting the regulations, to allow as much freedom to a man to exercise these rights and obligations as is consistent with his professional duty as a servant of the Crown. This necessarily involves a somewhat delicate adjustment. There is nothing in King's Regulations to prevent a member of the Armed Forces exercising his vote or attending a political meeting organized by any Party in order to inform himself of the issues involved before casting his vote. He may not, however, take any active part in the proceedings of such a meeting, and in particular he may not speak from the platform, whether he be in civilian clothes or in uniform. Both these prohibitions are clearly and unequivocally laid down in the regulations. It is, however, in his conduct at such a meeting short of such participation that room for discretion arises. Briefly, a sailor, soldier or airman is expected by the Services to conduct himself in a manner which is not likely to create the impression that: he is actively engaged in political controversy nor to draw upon himself hostile criticism. In other words, he is expected always to remember his special position as a member of the Armed Farces of the Crown, and to behave himself with circumspection. What in any case would amount to an abuse of this position is dependent in every case on the particular facts.

The noble Viscount complained that under the War Office Regulations soldiers were prevented from debating political topics of current interest. I speak subject to correction by my noble friend Lord Croft, but I think that it is true to say that the holding of a political meeting in a unit would certainly be an infringement of the regulations, but there is nothing whatever to prevent a discussion being held amongst the men, the officers being present or not as the case may be, and both officers and men expressing with complete freedom their views upon such matters of current political interest as the Beveridge Report, rehabilitation and resettlement after the war, and so forth. In fact, as is generally known, such discussions do frequently take place, and the officers are, I think, required to give the men guidance in these matters and to encourage such discussions. That seems to me to be an orderly and sensible way of achieving the very object which the noble Viscount has in mind. What would be a disorderly and most inconvenient way of doing it would be to hold the parallel to what in civilian life we call a political meeting.

As I say, however, the position is a delicate one, and amounts in fact to what might be described as a typical British compromise, incomprehensible, perhaps, to those not reared under or familiar with the workings of our Constitution and legal institutions. Its practical working is dependent on the exercise of common sense by all parties, and the fact that the number of reported instances of failure by Service personnel to observe the spirit of the arrangement is negligible is, I think, both sufficient evidence that the arrangement does work in practice and a testimony to the sound common sense and loyal co-operation of all concerned. I suggest that the matter had best be left as it is. After some experience in the War Office and in the Admiralty, I am wholly unaware of any burning desire on the part of members of the Armed Forces to take an active part in political meetings. That they do take a sharp and intelligent interest in political problems is not only perfectly true but a state of affairs greatly to be encouraged. After all, the flower of our manhood is now to be found in the Fighting Services, and it is well that those from amongst whom our future political leaders will emerge should equip themselves for the tasks of peace even while they are engaged in war. But there is a vast difference between active interest and active participation in politics, and it is this fundamental difference which forms the basis of the relevant Service Regulations.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord St. Davids will excuse me for one moment, I should like to say that I think the reply which we have had is very clear, and restates a position which we all appreciate; but that there will have to be a distinction made in this matter if we come to a General Election. The position to-day, if I interpret aright the regulations and the explanation given by my noble friend opposite, is that a man on leave can go to a political meeting and listen to what is said. I have been to many political meetings during this war, and I see there an increasing number of men and women in uniform. I have never had a question put to me by any of them, and I have never heard of anyone objecting to them being there. They came as spectators and listeners. They may have applauded at the end, but I do not know that that would be against the regulations. I am sure that they would not hoot any of the three distinguished representatives of the Services on the Bench opposite should they get up on the platform to speak, but I can imagine them giving demonstrations of hostility to some of their colleagues in another place.

When we come to a General Election, however, I think that a special regulation must be issued, and I would respectfully suggest to the three noble Lords who represent the Services here with such distinction that this matter should receive attention. A Bill will come before your Lordships in due course to prolong the life of Parliament, and also to make certain arrangements for an Election. It will include very elaborate provisions for the franchise and for the voting of members of the Armed Forces who are still in uniform. Now I do not see how you can prevent a soldier or a sailor, in his own constituency for example, questioning a man who is seeking to represent him in Parliament. I think that ought to be laid down quite clearly. A soldier who is a voter surely has the right during an election, whether he is in uniform or in plain clothes, even if he has not been demobilized, to ask questions on politics of the candidates. I think that will have to be laid down, and it is most necessary in Scotland, as the noble Lord opposite who has spoken knows very well. Heckling is taken far more seriously in Scotland than in England, owing to the greater intelligence of the electors there, and I do not think you can fairly stop it.

And I would plead for consideration being given in plenty of time. After all, we may have to have a General Election sooner than many people suppose, and I think provision must be made for the serving man who exercises his right of questioning the candidates. Perhaps I might inform the noble Lord opposite that when I first went to sea as an innocent youth—I think three of us joined together, and his distinguished father was captain of the same squadron—we were put through our paces in the gun-room by a very tough naval officer who was president of the mess. Among the other things he told us was this. He said: "Now, no politics in this mess. We do not discuss politics. We all read the Morning Post."

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, I only want, if I may, to add one word from rather a different angle. I entirely agree with what fell from the representative of the Government as to the most important role that will come to be vested in those who are fighting overseas to-day. To a very large extent they will have to determine the whole future policy of this country and Empire. I tried to find out about a year ago to what extent the Army overseas were kept acquainted with the great problems that are exercising our minds to-day, in Parliament and elsewhere, and I was perfectly delighted that the Director of Army Education was responsible for issuing a very large number of extraordinarily well compiled pamphlets on every imaginable subject which is being discussed, not merely by the public generally in this country, but by our two Houses of Parliament. And what struck me more than anything else with regard to these pamphlets, many of which had been sent to me by Mr. Bickersteth, the Director of Army Education, is the extraordinary and meticulous care exercised in seeing that no political bias enters into these pamphlets which have been issued for the benefit of the British Army. I could not help mentioning that, because it looks to me as if the Government at any rate were taking very great pains, through a very expert official, to see that no political party prejudice of any description enters into their publications for Army consumption.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, I am very glad to have had the answer from the Government. I was rather sorry to hear that, the Government seemed to think that a slight disloyalty was involved in criticizing the Party in power. In fact, I was somewhat puzzled when later on the noble Lord went on to say that the criti- cizing of the Government in power was actually encouraged in the units.

LORD BRUNTISFIELD

I must correct that impression. What I said was that discussion of matters of current political interest was encouraged. I did not say criticism of the Government.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

; Could the noble Lord explain to me the exact difference between speaking in favour of a Party in opposition and criticizing the Government?

LORD BRUNTISFIELD

What I said was that encouragement was given to the discussion of matters of political interest, not the activities of one particular Party as against those of another.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

I am very glad to Have had that explanation, and I hope the Armed Forces will be satisfied with it, too. I would only like to warn the representatives of the Armed Forces, whom I see lined up before me, that I shall send to them to answer any letters that I receive on this subject. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.