HL Deb 17 April 1951 vol 171 cc304-12

2.44 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM)

My Lords. I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe it will be for the convenience of the House if I do so with brevity, leaving it to other noble Lords, and more particularly the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, to raise any special points in which they are interested. Then, with the leave of the House, I will venture to reply to the points raised. Before I move the Bill formally I should like in a few words to call attention to two clauses—I refer to Clauses 5 and 6. I call attention to those clauses because they redeem pledges which I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, during the Committee stage of last year's Bill. I am sorry the noble Viscount is not with us, but, wherever he may be, I am sure that it will be good news to him to learn that these pledges are being carried out.

Clause 5 relates to the disposal of soldiers and airmen of unsound mind who have homes in Northern Ireland. I have no reason to suppose that many gentlemen fall into this category. At different times I have been accused quite unfairly, of criticising Northern Ireland, but never have I suggested that there was any undue proportion of lunatics in that part of the world, and I feel that this clause has a very small reference indeed. Nevertheless, I would just point out that we have now established, with an amendment on the lines Lord Bridgeman wanted, that no further legislation in the Northern Ireland Parliament will be required. The present clause authorises the Army and Air Force Councils to direct by Order that the soldier or airman concerned shall be received into a particular hospital, instead of applying for his reception. It is just the difference between direction by order and application. I am sure your Lordships agree that we should carry out the promise we gave, and would wish me to express our gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for assisting us.

Clause 6, I think, is of much wider interest. This, again, fulfils an understanding reached last year. Under the present law a soldier who has re-engaged to complete twenty-two years' service has to wait until his last year of service before he can apply to serve beyond twenty-two years. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, suggested last year that the appropriate time for giving notice of such an intention should be any time after the completion of fifteen years' service, and this in fact is the minimum period prescribed by this clause. This minimum period has been chosen because it is not considered that it will ever be possible to foresee the requirements of the Army sufficiently far ahead to enable applications for continuance to be entertained before the completion of fifteen years' service. I should say just this—it does not appear in the clause—that in the present circumstances of the Army, with the many uncertainties hanging over us, it is doubtful whether it will be possible to entertain applications for continuance before the completion of eighteen years' service and, at the outset, this will be the period prescribed by regulations. But if, after experience, we find it possible to entertain applications at an earlier stage, then the figure of fifteen years is available in the Act. We hope that these arrangements will help the "career" soldier to plan further ahead for his future, and that thereby more men of value to the Service will be encouraged to stay on than is at present the case. With those few words, and awaiting the comments, suggestions and questions of your Lordships, and more particularly of the noble Marquess, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Pakenham.)

2.48 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, your Lordships will, I have no doubt, agree that this is a practical and convenient method of dealing with a Bill of this kind, which is largely concerned with the annual reenactment of long-established provisions. The noble Lord was good enough to consult me in advance, and I readily agreed with his suggestion, it being open to myself and to other noble Lords who wish to do so in the course of the discussion to submit queries to which we believe he will reply at the end of the debate. I propose to make no comment upon what may be called the recurring decimals contained in this Bill—these clauses which reappear from year to year with unfailing regularity. There are proposed, however, certain amendments of a more or less minor character which I think raise a few queries. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord for the two amendments to which he has already called attention. I do not propose to pause to discuss the position of military lunatics in the North of Ireland, but the amendment to Clause 6, as I think the noble Lord said, is of much wider significance and is a valuable concession. It is important that a man who is looking forward to a long career in the Service should be able to make up his mind at the earliest moment as to the lines on which it is to develop. It is also important from the regiment's point of view that they shall know how many of their men are likely to be taking advantage of the opportunity to extend their service. The long-service soldier is so stable an element in many units that anything which can be done to increase the proportion of such men is to the general advantage.

There are two clauses to which I should like to draw attention, in order to raise questions upon them; and there is also one somewhat surprising omission. The first clause to which I wish to draw attention is Clause 3, which deals with the somewhat peculiar constitutional status of the Federation of Malaya and seeks to make the terms of the Army and Air Force Acts applicable, as I understand it, to forces locally raised. Unhappily, warfare on a considerable scale has been proceeding in Malaya for some years, and considerable forces are already engaged. I thought that those forces had for some time past included forces raised actually on the spot. If that be so, I am a little puzzled to know why it is only now discovered that this particular provision is necessary in order to ensure the proper application of the Acts to those forces. The noble Lord no doubt has the answer. but it is not one which suggests itself offhand.

The second clause to which I desire to draw attention is Clause 7, which substitutes for the words "regimental" and "regimental or garrison" the word "ser-vice" in a variety of contexts. I may be —and I hope that I am—unjustifiably suspicious as to the underlying purpose of that clause, or if not as to part of the purpose at least as to one of the possible con-sequences of it. There is a school of thought, which has ardent supporters, in favour of establishing a corps of infantry, which, it is claimed, would achieve far greater elasticity, even at the price of eliminating the traditional and territorial affiliations of existing regiments. I am afraid that I belong to the school of, possibly, not very deeply instructed thought which would not eagerly welcome such a change, and I should be glad if the noble Lord could assure us that that is not the purpose at which this clause is aimed, and that if we pass the clause we shall not be smoothing the path for the introduction at a later stage of this particular change.

The omission to which I referred as being somewhat startling concerns a subject on which I have rather frequently addressed your Lordships' House lately —that of courts-martial. Your Lordships may recall that the Lewis Report on the administration of justice in the Army and Air Force was presented three years ago —in April, 1948. That Report contained a number of recommendations which, if approved, would require statutory authority in order to give them effect. In the White Paper issued at the beginning of this year, in which the Government incorporated those recommendations which they accepted, a number of these recommendations appeared. Surely it was not unreasonable for us to expect that in the next Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill to be presented to Parliament after the acceptance of those recommendations steps would be taken to implement them, by giving them legal sanction. Yet not a single one of them appears in this Bill. I think I am justified in expressing some surprise at the omission. If these recommendations are accepted by the Government, presumably it is on the basis that they are considered beneficial. If they are beneficial, steps should be taken at the earliest possible moment to put them into operation. It can scarcely be argued that the Government have not had time to prepare the necessary draft provisions for inclusion in the Bill, for. as I have already said, they have had three years during which to meditate upon the necessary legislative drafting required. It seems to me that, since we shall presumably have to wait another full year before these recommendations can be brought into effect, all those concerned have been somewhat un-fairly treated. I should like to know from the noble Lord, first, why recommendations are not carried out in this Bill, and, secondly, whether it is proposed to introduce some intermediate legislation before the next Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is presented, in order to give these provisions the necessary legal effect. Those are the only points I desire to raise on this Bill. I shall, as always, await with interest the replies of the noble Lord.

2.58 p.m.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, the noble Marquess has spoken to us with all his customary charm and acuteness. If I were not equipped with what seems to me to be an effective reply, I should wonder whether an effective reply would be forthcoming. Happily, I am able to assure him that it will be made. May I take first what is perhaps the largest question which he raised?—I refer to the question of courts-martial procedure. He will not expect me—even if I had the competence—to try to cover once more the ground which he and other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, only recently covered with such authority in this House. I will just explain the situation in this very brief way. The White Paper to which the noble Marquess has referred shows which conclusions of these Committees (that is, the Lewis Committee and also the Pilcher Committee—though the Pilcher Committee is not, perhaps, under discussion to-day, since it refers to the Navy) the Government are prepared to accept, which are still under consideration and which cannot be accepted. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said in the recent debate, among the recommendations of the Lewis Committee which have been accepted (these are the only ones which the noble Marquess has in mind, I presume, for the purposes of this afternoon's discussion) there is little of importance requiring legislation which is not covered by the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill which is at present on its way through another place. The noble Marquess asked whether any other Bill was envisaged. There is that Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I know that, but that Bill does not cover everything.

LORD PAKENHAM

It does not cover everything, but I think it is right to mention it for the benefit of the House. As the noble Viscount said, there is little of importance which requires legislation and which is not covered by the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill, or which cannot be anticipated by administrative action, as at least one of the recommendations has been. At the same time, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, informed the House that our intention is to sweep up any outstanding points in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, 1952, by which time final decisions will have been reached on the recommendations still under consideration. I concede to the noble Marquess that it would have been possible to give effect in the present Bill to the recommendations which have already been accepted, but as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has said, they are of minor importance. I have three or four of them before me, and although, of course, they are desirable, they cannot be said to be really vital or urgent. One of these accepted recommendations has already been put into operation toy administrative action, as I have said, and it therefore seemed best to leave over the whole of the residual matter until next year, when the final decisions will have been reached on the outstanding recommendations, some of which are of considerably greater importance.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

The noble Lord says that one of these recommendations, stated in the White Paper to require legal sanction, has now been implemented by administrative action— or did I misunderstand the noble Lord?

LORD PAKENHAM

I am afraid that I answered the question in my own terms, and did not follow the terms of the original question. The noble Marquess phrased it in that way, but my answer was not in quite the same terms. I am taking only the recommendations of the Lewis Committee which have been accepted, not restricting myself to those requiring legal sanction. This particular recommendation—the recommendation that the eight-day report should be rendered whenever the accused is in close arrest, whether he is on active service or not—will eventually require legislative sanction. The recommendations which have been accepted are of three kinds: they can be dealt with by the Bill now passing through another place; they can be put into operation, as they have in this case, by administrative action; or they are very small and can more tidily be dealt with next year, when the remaining recommendations to be put into operation will be included in the 1952 Bill. In placing recommendations under three headings, I feel that we have followed the neatest course.

May I deal now with two other main points raised by the noble Marquess? I can assure him that no attack what-ever is intended on the regimental spirit by substituting the word "service" for the words "regimental" and "regimental or garrison" in Clause 7. All my colleagues, and certainly my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War, are determined that that spirit shall be enhanced in every possible way. The change in terminology is required only in the limited context of the Army Act, and in other cases the term "regimental" will continue to be used, with all its present wealth of meaning. The field covered by this change is that in which the words are used for strictly legal purposes, in qualification of "institution, necessaries, books, band, mess or property." The term "service" which is introduced comprehends, by the definition given to it in this clause, both "regimental" and "garrison" and makes it clear in simple language that what is referred to is any property belonging to, or connected with, the Army or any part of the Army.

The noble Marquess may be aware of the reason for this change, but some of your Lordships may not. The Amendment is necessary because of a good deal of difficulty which has arisen about the theft or damage of Army property. Your Lordships would agree that any such offence should not go unpunished because of a doubt of interpretation whether such property is legally "regimental" or "garrison" property. At least on one occasion the offender escaped punishment because the charge was wrongly drafted. In order to make sure that that kind of thing cannot happen, we are using the broad word "service," so that no military criminal can escape through some verbal quibble. That is the simple reason. I assure the noble Marquess that there is nothing sinister in this, no arrière pensée. no intention of weakening the regimental spirit, to which we all subscribe as warmly as he does.

Finally, I should like to say a word in reply to the noble Marquess's reference to Malaya. The purpose of Clause 3 is to enable the Federation of Malaya to apply the Army and Air Force Acts to forces which may be raised under local legislation. It does not affect men enlisted locally in Malaya for the British Forces. but only Malayan forces raised under local enactments. I do not know whether the noble Marquess was clear on that point. The Army and Air Force Acts already contain sections giving power to a Colony to apply these Acts, with modifications as desired, to any forces raised within the Colony. But Malaya is not a Colony as defined in the relevant legislation; it is a Federation of nine British Protected States, and the British Settlements of Penang and Malacca. The application of these Acts to forces raised by the Federation is not at present provided for. The reason why this particular extension is now necessary (and I think this was the main point in the mind of the noble Marquess, who asked why this had suddenly become necessary) is that for the first time the Federation intend to raise volunteer forces under local legislation—for example, the Malayan Volunteer Force, a military force being raised soon—to which they would like the Army and the Air Force Acts to apply. That is the reason for the clause. It has never previously been needed, but the Federation would now like it, so that they may apply the Acts to their new volunteer forces. That is an explanation which I feel will probably satisfy the noble Marquess. Unless there are further points, I will thank the noble Marquess for the tone of his comments and ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.