Lords Sitting of 4 April 1952

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD AMMON on the Woolsack.
Prayers

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (HOLLAND PARK) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
Bill brought from the Commons.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Earl Fortescue.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, it is most unusual, I know, on the First Reading of a Bill to make any remarks, but the circumstances are so unusual this year that perhaps your Lordships will permit me, very briefly, to ask of the Government one or two questions of which I gave notice as early as I could to the Office of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House.
This Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is one of the pillars, the principal pillar, of our Constitution, the one means by which the public protects itself from the improper use of the Armed Forces by the Executive. That is why it is an annual Bill. I do not know for how long it has existed, but this year it has taken a form that is quite unusual. It is proposed to be enacted, not for a year, but for fifteen months. On that ground alone one would be justified in taking the earliest possible opportunity of seeing that it receives proper consideration in your Lordships' House. As a matter of fact, it was smuggled in here this morning like the Old Pretender in a warming pan! Everybody knew that there was a mysterious Bill, which the noble Earl mentioned to the House last night after Thursday's proceedings, but no one thought that it was the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. There was not a word about what the Bill was. I learned
1430
officially what it was, only about two minutes ago
There is another reason for my raising these points. After all, this House is a House of Parliament although one is often apt to forget it, and it is the House most qualified by experience on the technical side to deal with this matter. Field Marshals, Marshals of the Royal Air Force and Admirals the Fleet abound in this House. Therefore, my contention in the questions I am going to put to the noble Earl is that this House should rank at least on a parity with the other House in matters of this kind—and I see no sign of that happening up to date.
Look at the sort of new questions that are going to be raised—absolutely new constitutional questions. What is "active service"? Nobody knows what active service means to-day. Is a man on active service if he is in the Army occupying Germany? Is he "in the face of the enemy" when demolishing a barracks at Ismailia? But he cannot be "facing the enemy" when he is there to cement the alliance between ourselves and Egypt. Then there is the question of war crimes. The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, often raise the question of whether a soldier is morally responsible to his sergeant or to the United Nations. That is an immense issue. This is the opportunity for the noble and gallant Earl to raise the difference between his own view that a man is subject to the Manual of Military Law and the view which will no doubt be put forward by the node Marquess the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that he is subject to International Law which we are trying to establish. This is a gigantic issue and should be considered in this House, which of both Houses of Parliament is the better qualified to deal with such a question, and should not be brushed aside.
The Government have this week for the first time introduced, patently, obviously and even brazenly, a colour bar. I am told that if I were in command of a squadron of the Royal Air Force and that squadron were a mixed one, if two men committed an offence, one white and the other black, there would he limits to the punishment I could give the white airman; but if the man were black, he could be flogged or given field punishment No 1. That, clearly,

1431
is an important issue. I am not debating it: I am saying that it is an issue of the greatest possible magnitude. I do not blame the Government in this matter, because they have stumbled on a problem that is very urgent, and they have had no time to deal with it. We have had a war, and so many other things have been happening. The form of this Bill has not been revised for many years and the old Act is in a quite unsuitable form.
After long debate in another place, what has happened? The Government have consented to set up a Select Committee to consider the matter. The first question I should like to put to the noble Earl is: Is this House to be joined in that Select Committee? It would be an extraordinary thing if it were not. It is just as much an obligation and a duty for this House to perform its legislative functions as it is for another place to do so. First, are we to be joined in that Select Committee, and secondly—because over the week-end the terms of reference of that Select Committee are being considered—is this House being asked for its views? In another place, this matter was hotly debated and Opposition Members are now in consultation with the Government as to the terms of reference. Is this House? I do not know: I have no idea.
I apologise to your Lordships for taking so much time, but finally I would ask, who is going to be in charge of this Bill when it comes before your Lordships' House? The Bill does not cover the Navy—they very cleverly never got under any annual control at all—but it covers the Army and the Air Force. There is only one Service Minister who can properly take charge of the Bill when it comes here, and that is the Minister of Defence. We cannot very well ask the Secretary of State for Air to take charge, despite his ability and talent. because he is a departmental Minister, and not even in the Cabinet. It is obvious that the Minister of Defence should be in charge of the Bill, because he is the proper authority on discipline in all three Services. On the other hand we need the noble and learned Lord, the
1432
Lord Chancellor, because here we are dealing with the Services and the Law - that is what the whole Bill is about.
I venture with respect to put these question to the noble Earl. I have done my best to acquaint him of it earlier in the day and I hope he can give me some satisfactory reply. I hope that next week, when this Bill comes forward, there will be no attempt to telescope this business. because of its great importance. It will be no good saying something about "further stages" and so on. It is no good doing that if this is a serious House of Parliament, and not merely an antechamber to another place. It is no good saying, "There isn't time," or "This is not the House of Commons," or putting forward any of the usual arguments that meet anyone who tries to carry on Parliamentary life here. But I do not think the Government will take that view. I respectfully, and even hopefully, put these questions to the noble Earl.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I must thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for having given me notice, but I am afraid that I heard only five minutes ago that he was to put these questions to me. I shall do my best to give him a reply. I shall answer the third question first, if I may. The Secretary of State for Air is going to make the main speech and I myself shall move formally the Second Reading of the Bill on Tuesday. As regards the other questions, about the Select Committee and their terms of reference, I am afraid that we in this House have no knowledge of these matters at the present time, but I have little doubt that if the noble Viscount raises these questions on Tuesday, he will receive a satisfactory answer.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his courtesy. I am afraid that I shall have to feed more on courtesy than on information.
On Question, Bill read la, and, to be printed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before three o'clock.