§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the pay of General Hackett is borne on Ministry of Defence Votes; whether he is subject to the provisions of the Army Act; and if so whether he is required to comply with the provisions of paragraph 680 of the Queen's Regulations.]
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, General Hackett is Commander-in-Chief, British Army of the Rhine, and at the same time Commander, Northern Army Group. His 318 first appointment is national, his second international. In accordance with long-established practice, General Hackett's pay continues to be borne on Ministry of Defence Votes. As a serving officer, General Hackett is subject at all times to the provisions of the Army Act. In his national capacity he is required to comply with the provisions of paragraph 680 of the Queen's Regulations for the Army; but as Commander, Northern Army Group, he is subject to established NATO procedures.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, may I express gratitude to my noble friend for the fullness of his reply? Is he aware that it will give general satisfaction to al those who are concerned with the democratic way of life that officers and other ranks serving in Her Majesty's Forces are at all times required to be subordinate to the civil authority, and that statements concerning matters of political moment should be made only by Ministers, or made under their authority?
May I now turn and ask my noble friend a question about General Hackett's relations to NATO Command? Is my noble friend aware that if the same principle as applies to British forces is applied to NATO, it would have been incumbent on General Hackett to have sought permission from the Secretary-General of NATO? Was such permission sought? If not, what protestations were submitted to the British Government through our NATO Ambassador by Signor Brozio? If General Hackett did not consult Signor Brozio, did he seek permission from General Lemnitzer, SACEUR; and, if he did not, why did he seek to obtain authority or permission from General Graf Von Kielmannsegg, remembering that he is a Federal Commander and subject of the West German State, and it so happens that the contents of General Hackett's letter coincided with the views of the German Government?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I will try to deal with the interesting and important questions my noble friend has asked. First of all, I entirely agree—and I am sure all of your Lordships will agree—that it is a fundamental principle of our democratic approach that the military should always be subordinate to the civil power. The noble Lord then asked me a number of particular 319 points as to the dealings that went on within NATO in regard to this particular incident. The fact that General Sir John Hackett's views coincide with General Von Kielmannsegg's views is not very surprising, since they also coincide with the views of Her Majesty's Government. But that is not the substantial point my noble friend is making, which relates to the procedure and whether in fact the permission or the agreement of Signor Brozio had been obtained, or whether he had been consulted. I can only say that, so far as I know, he was not consulted, but I do not know whether he is making any representations on the subject; if he had done so, I think they would almost certainly have been confidential. It would appear, from what the noble Lord has suggested, that there is an area to which my right honourable friend the Secretary for Defence is giving active consideration, and that is whether in regard to NATO procedures these matters of authority for making published statements—however desirable those statements may be—may need further examination. But I think it would be inappropriate for me to go further, beyond saying that I will see that my right honourable friend is aware of the noble Lord's views, and I have no reason to suppose there should not be some substantial agreement.