§ 3.38 p.m.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will repeat a statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the Parliamentary candidature of members of the Armed Forces. I think it may be convenient if I use the precise words of my right honourable friend, and they are these:
"I should like to make a statement about the problem of members of the Armed Forces seeking to obtain a discharge from the Services upon the ground that they wish to stand for Parliament.
"At any moment there are bound to be a number of Servicemen who have openings in civil life offered to them and would prefer not to have to wait for their period of service to expire, or, in the case of other ranks, not to have to find the cash necessary to buy their discharge. For these, the convention by which would-be Parliamentary candidates are given an immediate free discharge provides a unique means of release even though when the time comes the applicant need not even pay his deposit or offer himself for election.
"Knowledge that this is the situation resulted at recent by-elections in a number of Servicemen obtaining their release and some actually standing as candidates and has now resulted in many applications for nomination forms at Rotherham and Colne Valley. There is clearly a real danger of bringing our system of Parliamentary elections into disrepute, and of an undesirable abuse growing in the Services.
"It is because there is no solution to this problem that is completely satisfactory that the Government have not been able to take action sooner. Parliament might, of course, be invited to legislate so that the Services might release members of the Armed Forces on leave to fight by-elections, and then have the right to recall them. This was broadly the arrangement which existed during and just after the last 1037 war; but the situation then was very different. I do not say that to reintroduce this system would be definitely wrong, but the House will probably agree that we should think carefully before we commit ourselves to the view that men in public service can leave that public service to fight elections and then return to it when the election is over.
"An alternative approach is to say that applications by members of the Armed Forces to leave the Service in order to contest Parliamentary elections would be treated in exactly the same way as applications to leave on any other non-compassionate ground. This would mean that a stated intention to contest an election would no longer be accepted as a reason for discharge in a case where an application for discharge on other grounds would have been refused; nor would such am application be regarded as a ground for free discharge if discharge by purchase would otherwise have been appropriate.
"There are drawbacks and difficulties in all the possible courses, and all of them seem to the Government to touch upon important issues affecting the interests of Parliament and the rights of public servants.
"In the circumstances, the Government propose that we deal with this problem as follows. For the immediate future, we would adopt what I might call the administrative approach which I have outlined above. At the same time, we propose that a Select Committee of the House of Commons be appointed to study the whole problem and to report to the House"—
that would, of course, be another place—
"whether or not members of the Armed Forces should continue to be treated as they are to-day, and whether, if any alterations are proposed, these would have repercussions in any other categories of the public service. We should be happy to discuss through the usual channels the precise terms of reference of the Select Committee, and then to table the requisite Motion forthwith."
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am obliged to 1038 the First Lord of the Admiralty for passing this statement on to us. It is a little difficult to judge of its merits in a great hurry. The proposal to have a Select Committee on the matter is, I think, a desirable one; but the point is that we have by-elections in the immediate offing. The Government have therefore to make a proposal, and they make one in this statement to-day which I am not at all sure would meet the majority views in the country. Here you would put back upon a commanding officer, I take it, the question of deciding whether a man who says, "I want to stand for Parliament", ought to be dealt with upon the same basis as a man who might say, "I want to leave because I want to be a director of a company", or, "I want to get this particular post or follow that other profession". In most of those cases, I take it, the application for a free release would be refused—that is to say, that their application to be let out could possibly be reconsidered, though not necessarily granted, on payment of The usual cash sum for discharge. Certain criticism arises from the democratic point of view in relation to the election on a public franchise; and you already have had a certain practice.
Nevertheless, I think the statement is quite right in saying that to have the sort of situation which has arisen at Rotherham would bring our Parliamentary system of election into disrepute. Is there no other way available upon the plans suggested by the Government this afternoon? In the very short time one has had to consider it, I have looked at this matter with one or two of my colleagues. There is, of course, the normal procedure of applying for leave to do this or that; and would it not possibly be preferable (I am not trying to make a cast-iron case of this) for the Government immediately to make it clear that a man would have the right to apply for leave in order to contest a by-election but that there must first be given proof to the Government that he is going to fight the election and that, in view of what happened in the recent by-elections, a deposit has been paid before that leave is given, also making it perfectly plain that if the man gets leave and pays the deposit but is not elected then he must be called back to service? I do not gather from the 1039 statement whether this particular method of dealing with the matter has been adequately considered by the Government, and I should like to know.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said. I think the difficulty is that the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, makes his proposal unworkable, because any Serviceman is specifically prohibited from taking part in a by-election or from being nominated while he is a member of the Services. That is the difficulty with his proposal. I think that the suggestion which the Home Secretary has put before another place, and which I have read to your Lordships, is really the only practical thing that we can do to cover the Colne Valley and Rotherham by-elections. But, of course, all the proposals which the noble Viscount makes, and in particular his last one, will be considered, I imagine, by the Select Committee of the House of Commons.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, while the present situation is obviously highly unsatisfactory and something must be done before the two by-elections are fought, may I ask the First Lord who in fact will decide on the application? Will it be the individual commanding officer? And, if so, is any guidance going to be given to him as to how he should decide on what should constitute a non-compassionate ground?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the three Services are slightly different, but, if I may take the case of the Army, the man who decides on the exigencies of the Service is in the first place the divisional commander, although there is, of course, a right of appeal higher up.
§ EARL ATTLEECould the noble Lord tell us what are the comparable grounds for release other than compassionate grounds? They have got to make up their minds, apparently, on administrative grounds. What other grounds are there other than compassionate grounds?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the only priority you can have to get out of the Service now is compassionate reasons. Every other reason is an administrative reason—that is to say, if you want to start a shop, or whatever you want to do. There is no other priority now.
§ EARL ATTLEEWhat are the grounds, other than compassionate, on which it could be granted?
§ LORD CARRINGTONIf somebody wanted to start a greengrocer's shop and leave the Army.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, as this is an unprecedented situation, could not an amending Regulation be brought forward in order that the suggestion made by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition may be met?
§ LORD CARRINGTONI think not. I think an Act of Parliament can be amended only by another Act of Parliament.
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, could I ask whether, in the opinion of the Home Secretary or of the Government, the administrative arrangements contemplated for the two forthcoming by-elections will reduce to reasonable proportions the number of young men who say they want to stand, or sort out the sheep from the goats?
§ LORD CARRINGTONYes, my Lords. It will prevent any Serviceman from standing unless he would be able to get his discharge under the ordinary arrangements.
§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGHDo we understand from the noble Lord's statement that some message has been sent, or will be sent, to all the commanding officers with advice or guidance, or will it be left entirely to the decision of the individual?
§ LORD CARRINGTONThis is an ordinary routine matter at present. There are a lot of people who apply for discharge from the Army, and they have to take their turn if the exigencies of the Service make it undesirable for them to be released. These candidates will be in exactly the same position as those people until such time as the Select Committee of the House of Commons reports.
§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGHBut if a battalion or regiment in some part of the country decide, in the interval between now and the Select Committee's Report, that they will all, en bloc, apply at either Colne Valley or Rotherham, do we understand from the noble Lord that we have no means of preventing them from so doing?
§ LORD CARRINGTONI do not think the noble Lord quite understands the situation. The situation is that they will be treated in exactly the same way as anybody else applying for discharge from the Services. These rules are very well known. It is not the commanding officer who decides, it is the divisional commander; and there is a right of appeal beyond him.
§ EARL ATTLEEMy Lords, could the noble Lord tell us what is the ratio decidendi in these matters? You say he may apply to leave in order to start a shop. Is it for the good of the Service, the good of the man, or what is it that decides it?
§ LORD CARRINGTONIt is the good of the Service, my Lords, not the good of the man. If the Service cannot do without him, he is kept.
§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGHMy Lords, could I ask the noble Lord, as a last ward, whether, to lighten the burden of the Government, they will consider the advisability within the next twenty-four hours of sending all divisional commanders on a holiday?
§ LORD CARRINGTONThe Select Committee of the House of Commons will lighten the Government's burden, I hope.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLDoes this mean that he proposes to treat the bona-fide candidate and the bogus candidate in precisely the same way?
§ LORD CARRINGTONIn effect, that is so; but if there is obviously a bona-fide candidate—I believe, with respect, there are very few; but if there is one who is obviously a bona-fide candidate—I think we might consider putting that case immediately to the Select Committee of the House of Commons.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am sorry to trouble the noble Lord again. I think the First Lord is doing his best in all the circumstances to make it clear. But, first of all, this is an arbitrary action which has been taken by the Government. The proposal I made to him has been considered but rejected, I take it, by the Government on the grounds that under the Act of 1957 it would be ultra vires to do it. I should have thought that, as we have had a similar experience under the 1957 Act in recent by-elections, it would also be ultra vires under that Act 1042 for the Government to take the action they are now taking. May the legal authority tell us why not?
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, I do not like to be described as "the legal authority". Whatever else I am, I am not a British law ascertainment tribunal. As I understand what my noble friend has said, and in the absence of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I would say that there is a situation which, under the law as it stands, disqualifies a man who is in fact a Service man from, in effect, being a candidate at a by-election. What is now proposed is to discharge certain persons so as to enable them to be candidates which they can then lawfully be, because they are discharged; and to refuse to discharge others, whereby they will be prevented from standing. There is no illegality in that. The illegality which is apprehended is this. If you simply gave a man leave he could not stand because he would be a disqualified person. The noble Viscount suggested that we should simply give a man leave. This suggestion I myself favoured but was met with this argument.
§ LORD BOOTHBYWhat would the noble Viscount do if all the divisional commanders decided to become candidates?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI think we should have to hold a general court martial.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, like my noble friend, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, I confess I do not quite understand the situation. I gathered that there was some Statute Whereby the man could get out of the Army if he stood far Parliament.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHWell, that clears up the point I was going to make. "Bootsie and Snudge", who are not evidence, said it was in Queen's Regulations No. Something-or-the-other and that may have misled me; I will never take those two seriously again. Therefore I had thought that it could be done by an amendment of the Regulations. Is lit a good idea to start by submitting individual cases that may occur to a Select Committee of the House of 1043 Commons for decision meantime? I do not think it is a good idea, though I have great respect for Select Committees, but one cannot be sure that what a Select Committee does one week it will do the week after next. I am not attacking them. It is understandable, in the nature of the institution. In any case, the Government may be landed with a series of precedents made by the Select Committee that may fetter their hands very much when they draft legislation on the problem. But we all agree that something has to be done to stop this situation. May we take it that the action of the Government will be usefully operative in respect of the pending by-elections at Rotherham and Colne Valley?
§ LORD CARRINGTONWith regard to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary, I must say I think my advisers are better than his. In respect to the second part, yes, this will be operative for the Rotherham and Colne Valley by-elections. I think the difficulty about a bone-fide candidate is really to decide whether he is bona fide or not. I have been thinking about it in my own Department and I do not know how to define whether he is bona fide. I did not say, when I answered the noble Baroness, that that is what we should do, but it is something we can take into consideration.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHWhat I cannot understand is why we ever had the difficult position that arose in the recent by-elections. If it be legal to do what the Government are to do now, why was it not done then? I fail to understand the position. Apparently we can make these new procedures plain to the officer who has to say "Yes" or "No" now. Why could they not have been used then?
§ LORD CARRINGTONThey could have been, but the scale was very different in the last by-election.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHAs the applications came pouring in, they must have given some warning to the effect; and you had some candidates who were released and who never even paid their deposit. They found it was a cheap way of getting out of the Army.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMWhat has happened is that the Home Secretary 1044 has made a statement, which my noble friend has repeated, about a change in Government practice. The practice which we are now about to enforce would have been legal before, but up to the moment of the recent by-elections it was an extremely unusual thing to find that anyone stood for Parliament without really wanting to do so. Therefore it was thought reasonable that where a member of the Services applied to stand for Parliament he was bona fide in his intention to do so. So long as that situation obtained it was better to let him do so. It is to meet a new situation that a new administrative proposal is made ad interim until the Select Committee report on a more permanent solution to what is a difficult problem.