I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

I move to report Progress in order to elicit from the Government what their intentions are for the remainder of this Bill. I think the Committee really must know where it stands before again going into the very complicated questions on which we spent so much time last night.

I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree that in the consideration of the Bill which is now before us the Committee finds itself in something of a dilemma. We have on the Order Paper about 107 Amendments and, in addition, some very substantial alterations to the Bill which had been proposed by the Government. I do not think it could be said, and I do not think I ever have said, that the majority of the new Clauses proposed by the Opposition are either frivolous or unjustified; but the truth is that with the exception of a few minor Amendments this Act has never been reviewed since 1881, and even the numerous proposals now on the Order Paper represent only a fraction of the alterations which might well be made.

I think it is apparent to all hon. Members, especially those who have taken an interest in yesterday's discussion, that the Committee could not properly discharge its duties of considering the Bill and the numerous Amendments and new Clauses without exceeding the date on which the Bill must be passed. As a result of preliminary discussion, which I must say was very helpful, with the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), it has been agreed through the usual channels that the best solution seems to lie in the appointment of a Departmental committee comprising representatives of both parties and experts from the Service Ministries concerned, and from Parliamentary counsel, in order that they could carry out a thorough review of the whole Act with a view to putting forward their proposals for amendment.

If such a course is adopted adequate time would be available for expert consideration of the Measure, a contingency which I think Members will agree is unlikely to arise if the whole matter has to be discussed on the Floor of the House. This committee would be appointed by myself, in conjunction with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and details regarding its composition and terms of reference would be worked out through the usual channels.

This committee would then put forward its proposals to Her Majesty's Government before the end of this Session with a view to a revised Bill coming before the House during 1953. It might be for consideration that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider these proposals before being discussed by the House itself. I believe that it would be agreed on all sides that the Act as it now stands is so antiquated as to be unworthy and ill-suited to the Army and Air Force of today.

In the light of this decision, I therefore hope that we can now concentrate on the remaining Clauses and the important Government Amendments proposed in the Bill which lay down the regulations for the long service engagement in the Army. I am also aware that hon. Members opposite have both moved an Amendment about and expressed anxiety about the date for the discussion of this Bill. I suggest that that subject might also well form part of the discussion of the all-party committee I have suggested.

The considerable exploratory work carried out by hon. Members opposite, which I certainly recognise, will not, I think, be wasted since those Amendments and new Clauses will be available for this committee when it confronts the task for which we propose to appoint it. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West will consider this as really a sane method of approaching a problem which I think has embarrassed the House, in so far as the magnitude of the task that lies before us was not generally recognised by the House and results from a very long period of neglect of this Bill.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for this suggestion. In the old days the Army (Annual) Bill was always the subject of an all-night discussion, but I am afraid that they were not awfully good discussions; they were generally dealing with comparatively minor points, or with some points which have since been dealt with. The enormous changes which have taken place in our military organisation demand quite extensive changes, and beyond that are all the widespread alterations made on courts-martial. I think there is, therefore, a very strong case for a Select Committee, and I should like to accept that suggestion in principle. We should naturally want to look at the terms of reference and consider the whole method of setting it up.

There is another point. In the discussion on the Bill an Amendment was put forward for extending the time in which the Bill is introduced each year. That time, of course, dates back to old, historical times—the Mutiny Bill and so forth—but it so happens that almost inevitably the time is very short for the consideration of this Bill. If we have a Select Committee we should probably be able to get a very large measure of agreement and to thrash out quite a number of these subjects. Even so, I think the time would be very short, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, between now and the Report stage, to consider whether it would not be wise to make the time of this Bill at home the same as it is abroad—Members will be aware that there are different times for the Act to come into force.

I hope the Select Committee can get down to its work quickly. Naturally, I could not pin the right hon. Gentleman to a specific date, but I hope that we shall get the Committee in pretty good time so that we might see the shape of the Bill ahead.

In the meantime, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to indicate his intentions about some of the Amendments put down by my hon. Friends. He suggested that we should go on to consider the Government Amendments, but a number of Amendments have been put down to those Government Amendments, and if the whole were discussed together I think reasonable progress might be made tonight.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back from America after what, I hope, was a successful journey. Anyhow, he looks none the worse for it. It is quite true that in what he calls the old times there were all-night discussions on this Measure, but I do not think that in the old times to which he was referring the debates ever started as first Order of the Day. The Committee stage of those Acts was embarked upon at about 10 or 11 o'clock at night—very different from yesterday, when we started as soon as Question time was over. [HON. MEMBERS: "We lost three hours."] I do not know what hon. Members are muttering about. We started immediately after Question time.

The debate was interrupted.

There may have been lots of interruptions, but, of course, I am talking only of when the debate started. In the good old days to which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition so longingly looks back, as all Socialists do, we used to embark on this stage of the discussion late at night. This year we started at the earliest possible moment.

However, the right hon. Gentleman accepted, I understand, the suggestions of my right hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But the right hon. Gentleman did. It is no good other people saying "No." They may not have. I am addressing myself to the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "It should be the Chair."] I understood from the right hon. Gentleman that he was agreeable to the suggestions that my right hon. Friend made. There is just one point which, perhaps, he did not quite appreciate—I do not know. However, he kept referring to the fact that this should go to a Select Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—but my right hon. Friend has suggested that it should go to a Departmental committee.

Why did it not go before?

He suggested that this problem should go to a Departmental committee of which hon. Gentlemen from both sides of this Committee—or right hon. Gentlemen, it might be, from both sides—should be invited to be members, but that there should be other experts in attendance as members of the committee, because it seems to him that that is the best way of getting at the essence of the matter in the first place.

A Select Committee, after all, as we all know, is comprised of Members of the House and can only receive evidence, which is not quite the same thing as having other people as members of the committee in the first instance. What my right hon. Friend pointed out—I do not know, but perhaps the Leader of the Opposition did not quite appreciate this, and I do not blame him for not doing so—was that it would be a good idea, after the report had been received from the Departmental committee, that that report should go to a Select Committee, from which we could then get a report from our own colleagues.

It is not really duplication of work. It is really, from my right hon. Friend's point of view, an effort to try to expedite it, so that at an early stage there should be associated with the inquiry others besides hon. Members of the House, including hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would be a co-operative—if I may use the word—endeavour to try to bring up to date, as my right hon. Friend said, an Act which has been on the Statute Book for all these years and whose—I will not say errors—whose lack of up-to-dateness has apparently escaped the notice of right hon. Gentlemen opposite during the last six years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] It is only this week that this particular aspect has come before Parliament, and we all want—I do not know what the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) keeps interrupting for.

I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman.

Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Gentleman must not rise. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has given way"] No, I think the right hon. Gentleman sat down because I stood up.

We are trying to get the best way [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not wish to be co-operative in the way the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was, I am sorry; but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be anxious to accept the suggestions of my right hon. Friend. I was only pointing out that in what the right hon. Gentleman said in accepting it he kept using the phrase "Select Committee," which was not what my right hon. Friend said.

I understood the Secretary of State to refer to a Select Committee. I do not think he indicated clearly that there were two stages, and I should rather like to consider that matter. As I said, I was prepared to accept a Select Committee, but whether it should be a Departmental committee or a Select Committee is a matter which requires some discussion. I had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say it would a Select Committee.

I am sorry, but this suggestion was made through the usual channels. Having, for the purposes of greater accuracy, a copy of what my right hon. Friend said, I should like to read it. It was this:

"As a result of preliminary discussion … with the right hon. Member for Dundee, West, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the best solution seems to lie in the appointment of a Departmental committee."

No.

This is what my right hon. Friend said. There is no dubiety about that. There may be about the deductions, but this is what he said:

"it has agreed, through the usual channels, that the best solution seems to lie in the appointment of a Departmental committee comprising representatives of both parties and experts from the Service Ministries concerned, and from Parliamentary counsel, in order that they could carry out a thorough review of the whole Act with a view to putting forward their proposals for amendment."

That was the first stage. Then he pointed out that such a committee would be appointed by himself and his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air, after consultation as to membership, terms of reference, and the rest of it. As I say, we want this to be a co-operative endeavour. My right hon. Friend went on:

"This committee would then put forward its proposals to Her Majesty's Government before the end of this Session with a view to a revised Bill coming before the House during 1953. It might be for consideration"—

He only threw out this suggestion; if right hon. Gentlemen do not like it, or alternatively if they would like to press it, we are quite open-minded about it—

"that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider these proposals before they were discussed by the House."

It is much easier, on technical grounds, to put to a Select Committee some specified report or document. A Select Committee is comprised of Members of the House, and they give the benefit of their advice to the House as a whole; but in this particular field—and the right hon. Gentleman and I have both served on many Select Committees—if in the first instance there is not a specific document or proposal to discuss, a Select Committee is rather apt to lose time. That is all.

It was therefore thought by my right hon. Friend—and this is still open for discussion—that the best thing was to have a committee of the kind he indicated who would present a report; and it was then thought that it would be a good idea that the House should, through a Select Committee, further discuss and argue that report, and in the end produce suggestions on which a proper Bill could be founded. We thought that was the quickest and best way of doing it. All we want to do is to revise this particular section of the law.

I must say that this two-stage proposal, of first a Departmental committee and then a Select Committee, is new to me. I had not heard it. I am not suggesting that it had not been put through the usual channels; it may well have been, but to me it was new when the right hon. Gentleman first made it to us just a moment ago. Therefore, we should certainly want to consider that. It might have something to commend it. I do not know.

The point I wish to make is that if that procedure is to be adopted, if we are to have this very elaborate and necessarily prolonged two-stage consideration of the new Army Act which will come out of it, it seems to us doubly important to consider the proposition which we pressed last night and early this morning, that the terminal date of this Bill should be put back to 31st July, so that this long procedure, which is now to be made much longer by being in two stages, should have time to be gone through, because we apprehend that otherwise this time next year we shall get into exactly the same position that we are in now.

We would press very hard that on this part of these arrangements—and I venture to say that at first sight it seems to be an indispensable part of these arrangements—we should have on the Report stage an acceptance of, or an assurance now that effect will be given to, the Amendment which was moved in my name yesterday to change the terminal date of the Act. We cannot for the life of us see what the objection can be to that. It seems to us that it would be in the Government's own interest and convenience, and this time next year they would be very grateful indeed to us for having proposed that Amendment. I think it is of real importance that the proposition should be included, and I feel confident that when we cone to all these other inter-related proposals, we shall feel that this is almost an indispensable part of it.

These suggestions were put to the party opposite several hours ago. If the right hon. Gentleman was not made aware of them, I am afraid that is not my fault. We all realise that he cannot always be in constant attendance and that other appointments have to be kept, but these suggestions were made, and I thought from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that they were within the knowledge of his right hon. Friend. All that I gather from the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman is that he does not object to the idea that we should have an exploratory investigation by a Departmental committee, which is not only less formal but where other advice can be given, subject, if necessary, to a Select Committee afterwards. I gather that the right hon. Gentleman did not take any exception to that.

I would only say that we were very willing to consider that suggestion, but it was a completely fresh suggestion to me, and I cannot commit myself.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman cannot commit himself, but the Leader of the Opposition appeared to be ready to commit himself.

I did not appreciate this was a two-sided suggestion, and I said that we would consider very carefully what was the best way. Perhaps we can discuss through the usual channels whether it should be a Departmental committee followed by a Select Committee, or a Select Committee. I think that is a matter for discussion. I have accepted it in principle.

If the right hon. Gentleman accepts it in principle, the details can be worked out but, as he knows, the matter was put to him some time ago during the course of the evening. The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) seemed to consider it necessary that this Bill that is under discussion should have an Amendment inserted in order that it can be extended to the 31st July next year. That seems to me to be a very defeatist attitude. After all, here we are on the 2nd April talking about setting up a committee to investigate this whole problem, and I do not know why he should assume that it cannot possibly complete its work within a year. I think that is rather a ridiculous attitude.

The whole point is this. The result of what this Committee or these two committees propose will have to be brought before the House and put into the Army Act next year. The Army Act cannot be introduced until we have had Vote A. That is at the end of March. If it is to become law by 30th April and Easter falls on 3rd April next year, there would not be time to deal with that report in the House and put it in the Army Act. That is why we want to have an extended period.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is being a bit pedantic about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Do not say, "No, no," before I have said why. After all, if a report of a committee comes before the House, that is in itself discussable, and if need be time might be found for it irrespective of the introduction or otherwise of the Bill. Lots of reports are discussed as such in the House.

I am aware of the fact that the Bill cannot be introduced until after Vote A has been adopted, but my right hon. Friend pointed out that one of the points which might come up for discussion by one or the other, whichever it is, of the committees was the timetable.

Therefore, I do not think this is a matter on which we need quarrel this evening. The proposal which my right hon. Friend has made, which the Leader of the Opposition has accepted in principle, is that we should now proceed to discuss the Bill—there are Amendments, but we do not have to discuss them at inordinate length—and at the end of the day or night—whatever the time may be—it should be agreed that the whole question of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill should be referred to a committee.

My right hon. Friend suggested that for the first stage it would be better to have a Departmental committee. I still think that that would be better, subject, if necessary, to a report going before a Select Committee. I have taken some advice about this and have some experience in this matter, and I should say that a Select Committee as such is not exactly the best first body to investigate a problem of this kind.

That is what I put to the Committee tonight. Subject to agreement that this problem should be discussed during the next 12 months—quite a long time—in order next year to bring an up-to-date Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill before the House, that is the suggestion which is before hon. and right hon. Gentleman now. I understood the Leader of the Opposition to accept it in principle. I hope that we need not report Progress now but can get on with the Bill itself.

The Leader of the House is entirely mistaken about what was agreed to by the Leader of the Opposition. It was agreed that we should have a Select Committee. The point about which there is concern on the part of hon. Members who have put their names to Amendments is how they are to put forward their point of view. I only speak for myself. I should be prepared to do what I could to persuade my hon. Friends who have been good enough to put their names to Amendments to withdraw the Amendments if I were in a position, on the debate to send the matter to the Select Committee, to discuss exactly what should be the remit of that Committee.

But I am not prepared, nor is any hon. Friend of mine, to agree that this matter shall be buried in a Departmental committee when the right hon. Gentleman dares to get up at that Box and tell the Committee that he is not prepared to alter the date for the coming into force of the Act, which automatically means that the Departmental committee's report cannot be examined.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Act has not been looked at for a long time. It has. It was looked at by Lord Tring in 1889, and many of the Amendments were those suggested by the learned and efficient editor of the "Manual of Military Law." They have never been carried into effect because only for six years have we had a Government prepared to give enough time to consideration of these military matters.

The Labour Party completed the whole groundwork for this work upon which we are now embarking. We reformed the whole of the court-martial procedure and we reformed the whole of the system of the Reserve; we have done a tremendous amount of work of that sort, and the natural follow-up from that is to deal with the Army Act itself.

10.30 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman—being in grave difficulty because his own War Office did not even bother to put down the recommendations which were agreed without one word from them, as a result of the committees which insisted on criminal reform, the very reform necessary to implement the criminal law proceedings—did not even bother to include them in his own Bill. And when we tried to include them, he suggested that we were doing something improper. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I will not give an undertaking to introduce the Bill in such time that it will be possible to do this."

Everybody on both sides of the Committee wants to improve the Army Act. The way to do that is for us all to get together and decide what we shall refer to the Committee. May I take one example? We have a proposal down to repeal Section 16 of the Act, which deals with scandalous conduct unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman. I do not know whether a Departmental Committee could even consider a matter of policy of that kind.

We have a series of Amendments down which provide that an officer should not have a less punishment than a soldier when he commits the same offence. That seems to us for some reason to be a policy of equality, but we know that it does not commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite. We ought to get down and decide whether the Departmental committee has an instruction to amend the Bill in such a way as to make everybody in the Army equal before the law, or whether it has not. Those are the questions that must be discussed in the House before we come on to the appointment of a Select Committee.

There are two ways in which that can be done. One is by going through the various Amendments, many of which the Secretary of State said had a great deal of point. One or two of them, I agree, deal with perhaps trivial points; indeed, I have taken one of my own off the Paper in order to help things go forward.

Either we shall go through each one and discuss them in that way, which will take much time and will involve the House in sitting long hours and will make it difficult for the Government to get on with its legislation, or, what is a more sensible plan, a Select Committee should be appointed at once. As soon as we come back after the Easter Recess we should have a discussion on the terms of reference of that Committee. If such a proposal were put forward, it would command general approval and I would lend such influence as I have to commending that point of view. I do not think that the proposal of a Departmental committee is a good one. I share the surprise of the right hon. Gentleman at it ever having been brought forward. I did not know that such an idea was in the wind. But perhaps I ought not to be in a position to understand that. Since it has been suggested, it would be better if everybody knows what it means before they commit themselves to it.

What I think the right hon. Gentleman should do is to say that this Bill shall be re-committed as regards Clause 2. We will not ask the party opposite to go through the Lobby on it, but they should adopt the Amendment which we proposed from these benches last night. They would then make certain that we should have sufficient time to carry the matter through. But a Departmental committee which will sit in order to produce a report which, from the very circumstances of the fact, it is quite impossible for the House ever to consider, is not something which will comment itself to people who, like my hon. Friends, are seriously trying to deal with this Act.

If the right hon. Gentleman opposite says he does not see why we should not deal with it in April, I ask him if he has looked at the calendar for next year? Easter falls on 3rd April in 1953. That means that the Easter Recess will follow after the vote on Vote A, and there will be left only four or five days in which to have this discussion. I do not know what the plans of the right hon. Gentleman are for the Budget next year—whether it is to be in the House of Lords, as has been suggested. If it is the intention to have it in the usual way in this House, at the usual time, that will occupy the rest of April. So his proposal is that we shall have a departmental committee to insert something in a Bill which, by his own reckoning, we shall never have any time to discuss.

I do not know if that is a really serious proposition to put before the Committee, but if that is the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, we should all be well advised to study it with the help of a calendar to see what are the possibilities of carrying out this scheme.

So far as hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned, we would be prepared to welcome a Select Committee. We would welcome having, instead of late sittings, the opportunity of putting forward in a series of speeches general broad principles on which we think the Committee should act. That would be a guide to the members of the Committee, who would be the people taking political responsibility for decisions.

If these things can be done by a Departmental committee, why was a committee not sitting before the Bill was brought up? It must have been obvious to the Secretary of State for War when he brought in the Home Guard Bill, yet no Departmental committee was appointed then. Unless we can have an assurance that we can have a Select Committee, I do not think this proposal will commend itself to Members.

I want to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to what happened during the debate on Clause 2. For two hours we pleaded with the Secretary of State to accept an Amendment to fix the date at 31st July instead of 30th April. We did so for the reason which the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has explained. Quite clearly this Amendment goes to the core of our discussion. The Secretary of State yesterday gave us no reason for not accepting the Amendment. Had he accepted it, that would have eased our work considerably. I cannot understand why the Leader of the House should expect us to accept the proposal which the Government now puts forward without the proposal being accompanied by the Amendment, or the terms of the Amendment which the Government refused to accept yesterday.

I am sure that I shall be in disagreement with a number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, but I can see merit in the Secretary of State's proposal that in the first place there should be a Departmental committee—that is to say, a committee of representatives of both sides of the House and of experts; but only on condition that the committee meets at once and gets on with the job and reports in a short time. I suggest that the proposal might be accepted providing that the appointment of the committee is not delayed for more than a few days and, working to a time-table, comes forward with what would amount to terms of reference for the Select Committee.

The Leader of the House reminded us that before the war the Army Annual Bill came before the House at the end of a day's sitting. In those days the Army was remote from the nation. Circumstances are different today. I am trying to make myself heard, but it is difficult with so much noise going on.

The hon. Gentleman is having some difficulty in making himself heard.

I am trying to make myself heard, but my throat is bad. If I cannot make myself heard, during the rest of our deliberations I shall make up for it by taking more time. I intend to say what I want to say.

On this side we appreciate that it is a citizens' army, and that its young men come from every family and home in the land. We are laying down the conditions under which they serve. Therefore, since my right hon. and hon. Friends passed the National Service Acts, it is their bounden duty to see that the Army Act, under which these young men serve and are disciplined, is brought up to date and made to fit modern life. If we are going to have an efficient Army, we cannot afford that the Army Act should be hundreds of years out of date.

That is why we have brought these matters before the House and why, after several hours, we are now forcing the Government to listen to what we have to say. They could have apprehended our point, granted the will, in the first hour of the debate yesterday. I hope now that they are going to concede our point with slightly better grace than was shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who was not here during a great part of our earlier discussion but came in when the Closure was moved.

We are prepared to do all we can to make the Army Act a workable instrument; we do not want to waste time. Even if I am in a minority of one, I think there is something in the idea of a Departmental committee, provided that the Secretary of State for War will learn some of the lessons we have tried to teach him and not play the smart aleck, and provided he will try to co-operate with us in the job we are going to do whether he likes it or not.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the proposal for a Departmental committee. One would have thought from the way the Leader of the House spoke that the Opposition was in a difficulty; the fact is that the Government are in a difficulty and we are in no difficulty at all. We have legislation before us that we are proposing to improve. The Government are asking that for the moment we should surrender our leverage over the legislation in favour of a proposal so ambiguous that few can understand what it means.

First, the right hon. Gentleman said the inter-Departmental committee would have on it Members from both sides of the House and experts. What hon. Members in all parts should realise is that we are dealing here with the rights of British citizens. We are not dealing with a complicated machinery; we are dealing with the question of what the rights of individuals in the forces should be after the House has conscripted them into the forces. That is a matter of human rights, not a matter of technical detail.

Has the Secretary of State for War any idea what he means by "experts"? This House of Commons is supposed to contain a wide variety of knowledge and experience.

I think the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that, supposing we were going to appoint a Select Committee, it would be unlikely that in that Select Committee there would be any one individual member capable of drafting this Bill. I meant by "experts" Parliamentary counsel and Parliamentary draftsmen who are capable of implementing the recommendations of this committee.

That is an astonishing reply. I am amazed. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends interested in the Amendments that they ought not to abandon their Parliamentary opportunity for such a statement as that. There is no Parliamentary draftsman in the Cabinet. Does he seriously suggest that the Cabinet is incompetent to arrive at what principles should be embodied in a Bill because of that? A Select Committee, as I understand it, advises the House and the House accepts, rejects, or amends the advice, and determines what are the principles to be embodied in the Bill. It is that stage that technical experts are brought in, to put our decisions into legal form.

10.45 p.m.

When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of "experts," does he mean officers? [Interruption.] Ah, so that we have no guarantee at all that the Government would not pack the Committee at this stage. Indeed, the technical experts may be persons—[Interruption.] May I be permitted to continue? It is rather necessary that we get this clear, because what I am not prepared to do is to hand over my constituents' rights to a collection of brass hats. I am here for the purpose of protecting my constituents.

When, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman speaks of technical experts, he obviously does not have Parliamentary draftsmen in mind, because that was a nonsensical answer. He has some other technical expert in mind. Who is it? Is it a person—

A Polish general.

Maybe it is an American general, or an American admiral. The right hon. Gentleman's leader is so anxious to promote American generals over British troops that we have no guarantee that he does not intend to put one there.

Why should we forgo our Parliamentary opportunities in favour of a half-baked proposal of this sort? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us frankly who are the experts he has in mind?

Tito of Tonypandy.

I remind hon. Members opposite that their constituents are listening to their nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "So are yours."]

We are entitled to learn from the right hon. Gentleman what was the nature of the proposal he was making to the Committee. We have not heard it yet. I see no reason at all why Members of the House, sitting on an inter-Departmental committee, should be voted down in that committee by non-elected persons who may be dependent for promotion on hon. Members opposite.

It has always been regarded as one of the merits of the House of Commons that we have this diversity of experience. There are hon. Members who have served in all three Services. There are lawyers here who can advise the Select Committee on any matter involving jurisprudence. The technical experts can appear before the Select Committee and give the advantage of their technical knowledge before their superiors, who are elected Members, and from that Select Committee could ultimately come some recommendations that would put this matter in order.

It seems to me, therefore, that my hon. Friends ought not to abandon their Parliamentary rights, especially as we are in no difficulties here. One would have thought that the Government were making a concession to the Opposition. That was the flat-footed way in which the right hon. Gentleman came forward. He is in very great difficulties over the timetable. He does not even understand the timetable yet. Therefore, I suggest that until the Government are able to give the Committee more precise information, we should go on with our discussions on the Bill.

I only intervene, with some hesitation, because, like the Leader of the Opposition, I have for many years past taken part in the discussions on the Bill in the old form I want the Committee to be absolutely clear as to what we are proposing to the Committee as a result of the discussions which we have had. When, as a result of my past experience, my opinion, for what it was worth, was asked, I felt bound to say that I thought the proposal seemed to me a reasonable suggestion; and I put it to the Committee again. It is entirely for them to decide one way or the other. We are making our proposal and the Committee can say that they accept it or that they refuse it, but I think the Committee will agree that we must come to some kind of decision about it.

What we have suggested is that, in the first instance, there should be an inter-Departmental Committee upon which there should be, as there can be, representatives of the various parties in the House, together with the technical assistance which they will need. It is a perfectly possible thing to have, and there are plenty of precedents for it—an inter-Departmental committee on which there are Members from both sides of the House as well as expert advice. The Committee can reject the proposals if they wish. I am only trying to explain what is in our minds.

I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)—and I have been Secretary of State for War and have had a little experience of these things—that, as all of us who have had to do with these things know quite well, there are technical issues. I believe, and I advise the Committee, that it would be wise to begin this work on the basis of a committee of this kind which will combine Parliamentary with what I may call technical experience.

rose—

No, just let me finish. In order to safeguard the position of hon. Members, which I fully understand, we went on to say that if required—through discussion through the usual channels—we are quite ready to consider, after the work in the inter-Departmental committee is done, whether a Select Committee is needed to examine and express their view. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) says "No," but that is his view.

I think that this, which I might call a two-tier proposal is from the practical point of view about as sensible an arrangement as this Committee can make if it wants to arrive at a positive result. We have done this not to make a concession to the Opposition or to secure a victory for the Government. From some years of experience of this Bill I share the view that something of this kind is needed. I say frankly that it cannot be well done straight off by a Select Committee. I do not think anybody who knows this work seriously believes that. Our proposal is a two-tier proposal. We are perfectly prepared to consider with right hon. Gentlemen opposite the terms of reference to be drawn up for this inter-Departmental committee; and of course we are prepared to discuss membership. The sole object that we have—

rose—

The hon. and learned Gentleman might keep quiet until I have finished a sentence. All I ask the Committee is that we draw up the terms of reference for this committee and discuss its membership with the sole object that that committee shall prepare proposals which, if necessary, a Select Committee can examine before this matter comes before the House next year.

May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? I think that to this side there is something very interesting in the right hon. Gentleman's proposals when he said that the Committee must make up its mind and decide on this matter. Those were his actual words. Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he is proposing to put a Motion before the Committee and how long he proposes to allow the Committee to debate that Motion?

This would not be the first time that arrangements had been made through the usual channels. The offer we made a little while back was a fair and reasonable offer—that we should together draft the terms of reference for this Inter-Departmental committee, consider its membership and get down to a really useful job of work for the House of Commons.

I think there is, of course, a case, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, for an inter-Departmental committee first, but there is a case on the other side. There is a case that one wants to discuss the main issues from the citizen's point of view and the Parliamentary point of view before one sets the experts to work. Therefore, I do think this is a matter upon which we would all do well to think a little more before coming down on one side or the other. I should be prepared to accept the idea of a committee in principle. I am not prepared to accept right-off the two-tier or the one-tier system. It needs looking at with a great deal of consideration. I agree that what is needed is a committee to deal with this matter.

I only want to say that I fully accept what the Leader of the Opposition has said. Even the order in which one does this work is arguable. But what is certain is that this work has to be done, and on some practical basis, such as we suggest.

I hope that we shall be able to come to a reasonable arrangement on this, but the Government must realise that we have got a large number of Amendments on the Order Paper. We believe, that by Amendments we shall be able to do something, although not everything, to improve this Act, and to improve the conditions most of our citizens have to live under today. If we are to forgo these Amendments, we are anxious to have something real in their place. On the question of a Select Committee, what we feel is of vital importance is that the terms of reference should be such—It is a little difficult, Sir Charles, with all this noise going on.

Order, order.

It is of vital importance that the terms of reference of this Committee should be such that they could consider the matters which we want considered. May I mention one particular principle? We have a citizens' Army and, as far as possible, the citizen in the Army should be under the same law as the citizen out of the Army, and that military law should only differ from the civilian law in so far as it is necessary to maintain military discipline. That is a principle which we would like to have considered. There are various other principles involved.

The suggestion I would make, and it is a purely personal one, is that if we should appoint a Select Committee, that Select Committee, if necessary, should appoint a sub-committee, which would work with the Departmental experts and report back to the Select Committee. Then, we would have our principles and something which, in our view, would give us something real. The other vitally important point is that the Select Committee can only bring us principles. Next year, these principles have got to be put into an Act of Parliament. In that Act, they have to be considered by the House. The few days in April, which would be available on the present dates, are quite insufficient for the purpose.

So, unless the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment we suggested yesterday and extend the period of the Act this year to July to allow time to discuss the Clauses which result from the recommendations when these Clauses come before us, we on this side of the Committee, shall not feel that we are getting anything real at all.

I feel certain, speaking for myself, that the extension of the Bill would be a sine qua non to accepting, and an alternative to doing what good we can for this Bill by our new Clauses now, even if it does take some days' work and may be an imperfect way of doing it; but it will be an imperfect way of doing something which will get us somewhere. The right hon. Gentleman has already said that he will accept a lot of our proposals. If we are to give up these, we must have something real, but it is not something real unless the date is accepted.

I should like to make one further point to the Foreign Secretary, because I think he has moved a little way towards us. I do think that the Government should realise that they are asking us to make a very large concession. We are the people who are being asked to concede our Parliamentary right to debate this Bill at length, and if we are to make the concession I think our point of view should at least be considered more than the Leader of the House appeared to consider it at the beginning.

I suggest that we have to consider very carefully the way in which the Select Committee is appointed, and, second, the amount of time the Government are prepared to give to discuss its terms of reference; because, after all, we have sought in our Amendments—and I may say that we have put down only our first batch of Amendments: there are many more to come—to suggest certain principles on which we believe the reform of the Army Act should be undertaken. If we are to give up the right to debate those Amendments, we must be given an assurance that there will be time to put the substance of what we have expressed in those Amendments in the debate on the terms of reference of the Select Committee.

It will be a great relief to me if I know from the Foreign Secretary that two days will be given to the debate on the terms of reference of the Select Com- mittee. That would be a small exchange for the amount of time this Committee of the whole House will otherwise have to consume in studying our Amendments.

Let us be perfectly clear about it. If we do not get that agreement, there are all these Amendments to discuss, and all the further Amendments we intend to put down; and there is nothing the Government can do to prevent that happening. We should much prefer the other method, I agree with the Foreign Secretary. The amount of time devoted in the immediate future to discussing the way in which the Select Committee is appointed is not for the Government to decide. It is for the Government to find how much we are prepared to concede of our rights, because if we are not prepared to concede our rights, the Government cannot move at all.

I am going to ask the Government to show a little more recognition of the weakness of their position tonight. They entered the debate last night in a very cavalier way, as though they thought, "They are just a lot of amateurs with a lot of phoney Amendments."[Interruption.] Some hon. Gentlemen opposite here now were not here then, and were not present when right hon. Gentlemen opposite discovered their mistake—when they discovered, at long last, that the Amendments were substantial Amendments, and that this was an important matter which they, in Opposition, could have done something about in their day any time in six years. Those hon. Gentlemen opposite, had they done that, had they studied the Army Act and decided to reform it, could have saved us all a lot of work now. But they forgot to do it. Well, we have not forgotten to do it this year. We are exercising our Parliamentary right to improve the Army Act.

I believe that improvement of the Army Act will be a great deal more for the good of the citizens of this country than the legislative proposals which are mooted from the other side. We have the right to do this, but we are prepared to forgo that right on condition that there is a genuine reform of the Army Act, and a genuine chance that the principles which we have enshrined in our Amendments are embodied in the Act. Shall we have only a committee of brass hats and a report to be presented back to another committee? Oh, no. We are prepared to allow a Select Committee if the terms of reference are discussed for an adequate time.

We are very well aware that public opinion, when the people hear about the principles of reform which we have adumbrated, may not permit the brass hats to get their way. When the British public, whether the young men going into the Forces or the fathers and mothers, begin to hear of the sort of principles we want to see enshrined there will be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] There is the whole difficulty.

Hon. Members of the Opposition have been working on the Amendments, and there are a large number of people who have been working on the Amendments. We have not yet started to work, and hon. Gentlemen opposite will get used to it in time if the right hon. Gentlemen are not amenable to reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They have got to get used to it. I say to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is not a question of overplaying a hand. This House of Commons has a right to discuss the Army Act and all the Amendments that are put down. We all want to get a better method, and we want a Select Committee, but we want the right sort of Select Committee and the right terms of reference.

Therefore, the question which I am putting is how much time will be given for the broad and general discussion of the terms of reference, so that we, in giving up our Amendments, shall not give up the ventilation of the principles on which those Amendments are based?

I suggest that there is only one difficulty that lies between the Government and the Opposition. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made quite clear the position, which we have accepted. My right hon. Friend said, as I understood it, that he thought there was a great deal in the Government's suggestion and that it ought to be examined.

Let the usual channels go on examining the Government's proposals, and we will go on examining the Bill. What is wrong with that? In the meantime, the examination through the usual channels will be illumined and maybe hastened by our discussions on the Bill. Why waste any more time? Let the right hon. Gentlemen opposite proceed to discuss with my right hon. Friends the proposals they have made. In the meantime, we will go on doing our Parliamentary duty in moving our Amendments and discussing them. I should think there is no difficulty about that.

I listened with interest to the desire of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) to build up strength behind his negotiations, and I hope he will assist us in the international field in that same sense later on.

The offer that I have made, and which, as I understood it, was interpreted quite accurately by the Leader of the Opposition, is really before the Committee, and we must ask the Committee whether they are in agreement with it or not. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman waving his hand at me; I am only saying that any Government directing business must press for a decision and must know whether the offer is accepted or not. Normally, it is the Leader of the Opposition who expresses the view, either of dissent or assent.

On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman continually refers to the Resolution before the Committee on which we shall make up our minds.

As I have said before, the raising of points of order which are obviously not points or order is to be deprecated.

On a point of order. With great respect, I thought it was self-evident that it is impossible for this House ever to come to a decision on a matter, and, indeed, one of our most important rules provides that, unless there is a substantive Motion dealing with the matter—

The Question before the Committee is that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

I am obliged to you, Sir Charles. I never mentioned the word "Resolution." I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman is getting so excited about.

rose—

I never mentioned the word "Resolution." What is the matter with the hon. and learned Gentleman?

The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to decide.

I asked the Committee to examine—

And decide.

—and pronounce upon it by means of the Leader of the Opposition—and I am nervous of saying that. If a proposal is made through the usual channels it is usual for the Opposition Front Bench to say whether they agree or disagree. I only want to know where we are in the matter. I can only address the front bench and not each individual hon. Member opposite. Of course, if hon. Members behind the Leader of the Opposition make their view prevail over the front bench, that is their business. What I am trying to deal with is the suggestion we had before the Committee.

We have offered a committee. We suggested, first, a Departmental committee and then consideration of a Select Committee. The Leader of the Opposition, I think reasonably, said he did not now want to pronounce for the inter-Departmental committee first, or indeed for any committee, but that he saw value in the idea of a committee as such. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He has even carried with him his hon. Friends behind him. I am apprehensive at this growing unanimity. I wonder what will happen after the next sentence.

On that basis, I then suggested that through the usual channels we should work out two things—first, the composition of this committee, however decided, and secondly, its terms of reference. That was something the two sides might do through the usual channels. That sort of thing has been done at least a couple of hundred times in my experience, if not more. That is the proposal and, naturally, it is for the Committee to accept or reject it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members keep interjecting. I am talking at the moment to the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "To the Committee."] I am entitled to do that. Hon. Members shake their heads. I am still entitled to speak to the Leader of the Opposition, even if he does not like it. [HON. MEMBERS: "To the Committee."] Through the Chairman I am entitled to put a question to the Leader of the Opposition.

What I want to know is whether the proposal is acceptable or not. I want the Leader of the Opposition to tell you, Sir Charles, if it is acceptable; and if it is, we are prepared to go through with it. If it is not acceptable, we must be told so, and we must go on with the procedure as it was.

I gave the answer about three-quarters of an hour ago. I think we on this side of the Committee are all agreed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We have all accepted in principle the idea of having a committee. We have said that we are not prepared straight off to accept the exact proposition as made by the Government for the two-tier system of committees, but we will examine it. We cannot go further than that at the present time. It is perfectly open for us to go on with the Bill; I do not know why we did not do so half-an-hour ago. Then we can consider the matter at a later stage and come back and see if this proposition is what we want. Having put that proposition, whether one is the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else, one must accept that there must be examination.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

No.

I have not selected the first Amendment in the—

On a point of order. It is impossible to hear what you are saying, Sir Charles, because of the noise. Last night Motions were passed, due, I think, to misunderstandings on the Floor. Could you please put the Question so that we may know what is being determined by the Committee?

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I do not select the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). The next Question is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." That Question, under Standing Order 45, I am putting forthwith.

May I respectfully submit this point? This is the first time in the procedure of the House that the Standing Order has been applied. As I understand it, it gives the Chair discretion to put the Question forthwith if the Chair is of opinion that the matter has been amply and fully discussed on some Amendment to the Clause at an earlier stage. I invite the co-operation of my hon. Friends in raising this matter forcibly. This is a Clause of two paragraphs.

Order, order. I, too, have some knowledge of Standing Order 45, and having given my decision I have to put the Question forthwith.

May I respectfully continue—

Order, order. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to obey my Ruling. I am only carrying out the Orders of the House. I do not make the Standing Orders.

I can put my point in two sentences. With great respect, no Question can be put from the Chair—

Order, order. I certainly called the hon. Gentleman on a point of order, but he did not require to go very far before I discovered I knew the answer. He is dealing with my right under Standing Order 45 which I am operating and exercising. As I was exercising it, I have no option at all but to put the Question forthwith.

I can put my point in two sentences. This is a Clause of two paragraphs. One paragraph has never been mentioned at all.

Order. What is more I am not going to have my Rulings criticised.

Mr. Head.

On a point of order. Sir Charles, may I respectfully seek your guidance? I will put my point as reasonably as I can. In the course of a debate some weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was suspended from the sittings of this House for being on his feet at the same time as the Chairman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up"] If the Chairman rises to put a point without any discussion at all, there is no practicable way by which an hon. Member can respectfully draw the attention of the Chair to his own views on the matter, a matter of vital importance, unless he physically rises while the Chairman is on his feet.

A moment ago I was subjected to criticism for being on my feet at the same time as the Chairman. Could I ask you to give us some Ruling as to how it is possible to raise a point of order at all when a Question is being put? So far as most hon. Members are concerned, this is a most unusual course, because I do not think that Standing Order has been applied before. I know of no way of raising a point of order except by rising when the Chairman is on his feet.

Now may I respectfully put the second point, which is of great importance. I do say with respect that although there are Standing Orders which direct the Chairman to put the Question forthwith, there is nothing in Standing Orders which prevents a point of order being put at any stage of our proceedings, and that it would be very undesirable if that were the case.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in what he said. I am aware that he would not do anything disrespectful to the Chair or anybody else. The point is that the word "forthwith" appears in Standing Order No. 45 as it does in other Standing Orders. When that happens there is nothing to be done except to put the Question. There can be no point of order. I am only carrying out the Standing Orders of the House. It may perhaps be awkward, but I have no discretion in the matter. Since the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that he remained on his feet while I was standing, as I knew he would not be discourteous, I took no notice.

I am grateful, Sir Charles. I am sure the Committee is grateful for your courtesy. There was a point in our proceedings earlier today when you were good enough to say that, by a mistake, when a Motion to report Progress had been moved, you took it for a Motion that the Question be now put. With respect, surely that is a matter on which we ought to have the right to rise at once and put a point of order? But there again we should be in the position that, with you on your feet, it would appear a discourtesy were we to rise. It would be possible, therefore, in circumstances similar to those I have mentioned, for the House to decide something which had never been moved. Therefore, I suggest that the word "forthwith" is not so peremptory as to make it improper for a point of order being respectfully put before the Division is taken

I am not learned in the law, but my idea of "forthwith" means at once. That may or may not be right, but that is what it means to me.

I have not the remotest intention of casting the least doubt upon the Ruling that has been made, Sir Charles, but I am sure you appreciate that once the Chair arms itself with the most arbitrary power it possesses, when it cannot allow any further discussion—such a power which is unusual and rarely exercised—it means that any considerable body of opinion in the House will feel that it is unable to present its views. That is the reason why, in my respectful submission, it rarely ought to be exercised.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that I did not arm myself with any power. I am only carrying out the will of the House. I would not presume to do otherwise. In my opinion there had been adequate discussion of the Clause, and I was simply carrying out the rules of the House. If I was wrong, I can only say that it was my opinion.

On a point of order, Sir Charles. Would you be kind enough, for the guidance of the Committee, to indicate what attitude you propose to take on the procedure on this Clause? Before my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) raised his point of order, I thought I heard you call on the Secretary of State for War. Could you kindly say whether that means you are not calling either the Amendment in my name to page 3, line 40, at the end, to add:

"but shall not include British subjects or citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies engaged in an industrial dispute,"

or the other Amendment in the names of various other hon. Friends of mine?

I beg pardon. There is a manuscript Amendment of the Secretary of State for War which comes before the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). However, I am afraid that when the time comes I shall rule the hon. Member's Amendment out of order.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out "hostile" and to insert "armed."

This Clause has been introduced to make certain changes in the existing definition of the word "enemy" as it at present stands in Clause 190 of the existing Act. The only substantial alteration lies in the last part, which states:

"pirates and all persons engaged in hostile operations against any of Her Majesty's Armies."

I am only too well aware that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) was somewhat anxious about that particular definition, and so was the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because they said that it seemed to them that it would cover individuals, even in this country, armed with bricks or, as an hon. Member said, armed with pea-shooters. For these reasons I have proposed this manuscript Amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that change does resolve the point about which I appreciate he has the right to be anxious because of the latitude which was given in the Clause. I hope that in view of the Amendment the Committee will agree to this Clause and that the hon. Member for Maldon will not feel pressed to move his Amendment.

I intended to raise a point if discussion were allowed on the Question that the Clause stand part. The point would have arisen had the word "hostile" remained; but I think that the point I was going to raise arises even more acutely in view of the Amendment now introduced. The Secretary of State will remember that a little earlier we were discussing the meaning of the phrase, "engaged in operations", which occurs in the preceding Clause. The Secretary of State then argued that that phrase could not mean merely such an act as posting a sentry. He was saying that the phrase, "engaged in operations", without any adjective before it, must mean some positive action, something more than the posting of a sentry or the carrying out of a routine military duty. He prevailed on the Committee to accept that.

Now we have a new phrase introduced, namely, "armed operations." I am not learned in the law, but I believe that I am right in suggesting that if in one part of the Bill we have the phrase "engaged in operations" and in another part "engaged in armed operations", it is a not unreasonable assumption that to both lawyer and layman that they do not mean the same thing.

The hon. Member will recall that in the previous Clause the phrase "engaged in operations" was referring to the British Army. I cannot conceive of the British Army being in occupation of a foreign country and being engaged in operations unarmed. I think that the hon. Gentleman is stretching this point too far. I put in this word to cover a specific point, namely, that in this country it could be interpreted that the throwers of bricks would become enemies. I moved the Amendment to obviate that possibility. The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this and is not being helpful to the Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman has not seen my point at all. I was asking for information. We now have two phrases, "engaged in operations against the enemy" and "engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces". Apparently, therefore, there are two different concepts. We all understand well what engaged in armed operations will mean, and we agree that the right hon. Gentleman has made a helpful concession in putting in the word "armed" here, but it would appear to throw some doubt on the meaning of the phrase "engaged in operations". He previously defined that as excluding ordinary military duties, and meaning, therefore, armed active operations. Now, apparently, it does not mean that, because "engaged in operations" must mean something other than—and presumably something less emphatic than—"engaged in armed operations." What comes, then, of the argument he used on Clause 3? I dare say that there is some simple legal answer, but before we proceed we ought to have it.

I will endeavour to give the short answer. It is a very simple point. I do not share the hon. Gentlemen's fear about difficulties of interpretation of Clause 3 in the light of the proposed Amendment.

In Clause 3 we are dealing with British forces engaged in various activities, engaged, as he says, in operations against the enemy. There could only be a different meaning attached to the phrase in Section 4, "engaged in armed operations," if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to assume, as I am not, that a British force when unarmed would be engaged in operations against an enemy. The definition goes on, "engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life or property." I do not think the argument advanced in relation to Clause 3 in any way invalidates the interpretation and meaning of the Amendment to Clause 4, which is to exclude the possibility to which attention was drawn. I do not think there is any reason for fear about this, and I hope that we can pass on to the next point.

I take it the new definition was originally included to cover the operations in Korea, which are sometimes described as deterrent action rather than war. I am much obliged to the Secretary of State for War for meeting me on the Amendment that I put on the Order Paper. The Chair has already indicated that that Amendment would not have been called, but in any event I should have felt obliged, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, to ask leave to withdraw it. I am only sorry that in giving this recognition of the value that may be supposed to be contained in my simple Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has got himself in the wrong with the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. Stewart).

I am now fully satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman.

I would make the suggestion that perhaps in future years it would be worth considering whether in the definition Clauses of the Act, which are very extensive and thorough, there could be a definition of the word "operations." The right hon. Gentleman himself tried to define it at one stage of our proceedings last night, and although there are definitions, as he will know, in a good many places, I do not think there is a proper definition anywhere.

The difficulty seems to me to be this. When last night we were discussing "operations" on an earlier Clause, I expressed the view—I do not think it is the view of the Solicitor-General—that "operations" would have to be construed in its dictionary sense of being an activity. The right hon. Gentleman took the other view and said that it would have to be construed in its military and technical sense.

Last night the hon. and learned Member isolated the word "operations", looked it up in the dictionary and made a very good speech on that basis. What he overlooked was that the phrase in the Clause is "engaged in operations," which is a different thing from "operations" per se the dictionary. I should say that military forces

"in military occupation of a foreign country"

and engaged in operations, are not forces who are sitting in barracks, going to the cookhouse, and going about under ordinary peaceful conditions.

I quite follow the point. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes that technical meaning to be applied to "operations," he would be safer to put in a definition when he comes to the end of the Bill. For the moment, I am accepting his definition that "operations" in Clause 3 has the technical meaning of being the collective object of a military force.

But surely that is not the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman intends to apply in Clause 4. If an individual—in Malaya, it may be—in a quite independent manner goes out sniping British forces, I imagine that that is an operation which makes him an enemy within the definition of Clause 4. That is an additional reason—

Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend could be further assured by the definition in the Act:

"The expression 'enemy' includes all armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters, and pirates."

But then it goes on to say:

"all persons engaged in hostile operations …"

Hostile "armed" operations.

I beg pardon. I should have thought that whereas "operations" would exclude the individual sentry as being engaged in operations in Clause 3, it would include the individual sniper in Clause 4, so that "operation" in Clause 4 has the dictionary meaning whereas in Clause 3 it has not. There may be some confusion if we use two words in following Clauses, the first in a technical and military sense, and the second in its ordinary and dictionary sense.

I do not know that "armed operations" is much better than "hostile," because the right hon. Gentleman said he wished to exclude the man who throws a brick. But is not the man who throws a brick armed? I remember one of the most famous of historical engagements, one which took place between the Israelites and the Philistines, and as far as I remember that action was by one David casting a stone at one Goliath. Surely that is an armed operation, and certainly the courts have held that the fist of a trained pugilist is a weapon. Therefore, I suggest that a better word than "armed" would be "lethal." What is really meant is the man who attacks forces with the intention of killing some of them, not merely with the intention of making a display, or the case of a rioter throwing a brick, but with a lethal intention. I should have thought that to achieve the intention of the right hon. Gentleman "lethal" would have been a much better word than "armed."

I think this is an improvement, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for it. Will it be your intention, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to put the Question that the Clause stand part, in which case I could say things on this Clause more conveniently than now? In view of the recent application of the Standing Order, I wonder if you could give us some guidance?

We are not anywhere near that yet. We are on the first line of Clause 4 at the moment.

If you cannot answer my question now, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I shall not dispute it; but I must address the Committee now piecemeal on these matters instead of collectively. I am rather sorry to take that course. The very difficulty the Committee are now in on the whole meaning of "operation" shows it is regrettable we did not have an opportunity of discussion on the Question that Clause 3 stand part.

On that point, if I may intervene, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), has consciously or unconsciously raised a serious question. He invited you to say, Mr. Hopkin Morris, whether you intended to permit a debate on the Question that the Clause stand part. We have had a discussion tonight as to whether in any circumstances it is possible to have a Ruling of that kind. I hope we shall never get into a situation in which any hon. Member of this Committee invites the Chair to give a Ruling, while we are discussing one of several Amendments on a clause, whether at a later stage there is to be a discussion on the Question that the Clause stand part.

That is precisely the reason for what I said. There are a number of Amendments to the Clause and I do not know what the position will be by the time we have dealt with those Amendments.

This seems to me very important and in the interest of the Committee as a whole, not only on this Bill but on other Bills. It would be quite impossible and would render the whole of our proceedings futile if it ever was considered possible, while we are discussing one of several Amendments, for the Chair to be asked even to consider whether there could be any doubt about the ability of the Committee to have a debate on the Clause stand part.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in the Committee during our previous discussion, but I am impressed by what he has said and by what you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, have told us. We have had a Ruling that there can be no discussion whatever and no argument on whether there is to be a debate on the Question that the Clause stand part. Hon. Members are in the position that if they have prepared a speech to deal comprehensively with that Question they may find in the end that they take no part whatever in the Committee proceedings.

I think the suggestion the Minister has made is an improvement. I would have suggested that the word "military" might have been better than the word "armed," but that is a matter of argument. There is, however, a curiosity about the Amendment as now put, because this is the one exception to a list of classes of "enemy." As far as I know, there is in the Act itself no definition of the word "enemy" as enemy. There is merely an interpretation Clause which says there shall be included in the word "enemy "a number of additional classes.

A number of these classes are in fact exceptions to the rule—armed mutineers, armed rioters, pirates. We now have an exception added to a series of different exceptions, and I know the Solicitor-General will realise that that might give the courts difficulties in interpretation but for the fact that these classes are not likely to come before the courts. However, it is a little anomalous, and I hope the Minister will consider the matter between now and the Report stage.

11.45 p.m.

It is curious, too, that pirates do not have to be armed. To be a pirate is an offence of such enormity that he is an enemy, whether armed or not, and apparently wherever he is. It presents an important problem, indeed, when we are engaged in operations in Korea that the normal sea tradesman is generally regarded as something of a pirate and when many of the ships are devoted to the casual foray from time to time.

There is another point of very real substance on this matter. This is the dreadful difficulty we are getting in. Let me put this classified definition of armed persons, armed operations, and armed mutineers. It is natural that we think in terms of hostile forces operating in a hostile way. It is clear that what is meant is a mutineer in the military sense. What is meant is not some person who seizes a ship on the high seas and goes into port and tries to drive out the soldiers. We mean a mutineer in the military sense. A mutineer in the Army is a man who commits minor acts of insubordination. He comes under Section 7, which says that

"Every person subject to military law who commits any of the following offences; that is to say,. …"

which ends by saying,

". … shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer death, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."

It includes the various matters we discussed yesterday, including concealment of a knowledge of somebody else's fault. It includes all sorts of phrases of insubordination, which are all technical cases of insubordination for this purpose. If a man is carrying a rifle, he is classed as a mutineer.

We have a lot of Amendments to discuss, and I am trying to put a comprehensive argument instead of wasting the time of the Committee by getting up once or twice to speak. Yesterday we spent two hours discussing the definition of active service, and nobody mentioned that active service controlled the sentence of field punishment. One can sentence a lad of 18 years who is serving in Germany to field punishment for a whole series of minor acts of insubordination, merely on the ground he is scheduled on active service. That lad of 18 on active service in Germany can become an armed mutineer merely by minor acts of insubordination. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, on looking back, will remember classic instances of what was a mutineer in the old days.

I know he is a man of great humanity, and I say sincerely that I would trust him implicitly to see these abuses do not grow up again and that no new abuses will be allowed to arise. In the old days, an orderly officer would go round and ask the soldiers, "Any complaints?" If a small voice said, "Yes, sir," the reply would be, "Take that man's name and put him on a charge at once." That is one's first test of insubordination in the forces. I had hoped I might have been interesting you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I will accept, at once, the implied warning I gather from your manner. I thought that one illustration in amplification of my theme would be worthwhile.

Really, the Clause should be re-drafted and made more smooth, sensible, and logical in its detail. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this matter again as we may not have the opportunity of considering Clause 3 again.

I want to make a very brief intervention because I am not quite satisfied with the answer the Solicitor-General gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart). I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting this Amendment forward, but the objection I would have to it is that it seems to me to make the phrase in Clause 3

"engaged in operations for the protection of life"

worse than it is at the moment.

Let me give an example of what I mean. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as a matter of substance, we know perfectly well when an armed force is engaged in an operation. Well, suppose there is an outbreak of looting, and an armed force is called upon to put it down, and suppresses it, and remains there in case there is a renewal of the looting. At what time does the force and the soldiers comprising it cease to be on active service?

It seems to me that that is a question which it is extremely difficult to answer, even if we do not have the proposed Amendment to Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman is to look again, as he kindly told us, at the definition of "on active service." I hope he will give further consideration to the words "engaged in operations for the protection of life," which seem to me to be worse than they were before, worse than they were when the phrase read

"… engaged in hostile operations."

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the point I have raised—that there may be a battalion putting down an outbreak of looting, and the consequent position of a soldier in the battalion. At what time is he engaged on active service? Is he engaged on active service only when the looting is going on and is being suppressed? Or does he remain on active service when the battalion remains in the area in case there is a further outbreak? Or does he then cease to be on active service? All these doubts arise only because of the unsatisfactory and vague nature of the expression "engaged in a foreign country in operations for the protection of life."

The reason I am making this comment on the present Amendment is, that it seems to me that, by now using the expression "engaged in armed operations" in Clause 4, we are casting still more doubt than there was before on the words "engaged in operations for the protection of life" in Clause 3. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give further thought to that, and that the Solicitor-General will also consider what I have said.

I am aware that this Clause is not perfect. Indeed, it would be a very fine Clause that was, on this very difficult subject. As I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, it is not an easy matter for definition. He queried the words

"engaged in a foreign country in operation for the protection of life or property."

I put this consideration to him. However accurate the definition, it is almost impossible to define when active service ceases—purely by definition. I am no learned Gentleman, but surely that must be left to a ruling from the authorities concerned. One cannot actually define it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head, but though I am not a lawyer I have had some experience of this problem, and of matters of de facto active service; and that presents a very considerable problem in these days of the cold war.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman cited the case of looting. It dies down. It does so very often in the day time, because looting, by and large, is a night sport. The battalion has the duty of preventing the looting. It has the general duty to do that. It stays in the area days, perhaps weeks. It is a matter of common sense. I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman was making rather heavy weather of it.

I do not want to restart the discussion on Clause 3, because it would be out of order, but on Clause 4 it seems to me that the change we are now making makes Clause 3 worse than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman obviously cannot give an answer now, because that is an extremely difficult matter, and I can well understand the difficulty of defining these matters. I simply hope that he will not, as a result of changing Clause 4, make Clause 3 worse than it was before.

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I only dealt with that point because he raised it and I thought it was relevant, but the last thing I would want to do is to prolong the debate. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in the time available we will look at this again, and, with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and our advisers, see if we can get something better. Perhaps I could consult the right hon. and learned Gentleman behind the Chair? If we could come to some agreement, we should be only too happy to do so.

I want to raise one point in connection with this Clause and the question of definition. It seems to me that there is one great weakness in this definition in that it deals only with those who are engaged in armed operations against Her Majesty's enemies, and does not deal with the situation, such as recently arose, when armed operations were initiated by Her Majesty's Forces against persons who had not engaged in direct operations themselves.

I think the case that comes immediately to mind is that which took place at Ismailia in the Canal Zone in January of this year, when, by a Cabinet decision, it was decided that Forces in the Canal Zone should go to a place where the auxiliary police headquarters were, present an ultimatum, and, in the event of the ultimatum not being accepted, should open operations against them.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? I think his speech may give a quite misleading interpretation of this matter. This particular action, to which he referred, followed on a long succession of hostile acts within the Canal Zone, in which a considerable number of British soldiers were killed, mostly by irregular police for whom the Egyptian authorities were not responsible. The hon. Gentleman's speech suggests that, without any provocation whatever, British troops walked into the police barracks and shot the police, which is an absolute travesty of the facts and would be giving an impression not justified by the facts.

I am grateful for that intervention, because the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of more of the facts than an ordinary hon. Member in connection with this incident. All I say about that particular incident is that, as far as I personally am concerned, it will go down as a massacre, and I will leave it at that.

What I am much more concerned about is the situation which arises when the Government take the decision to initiate operations for very good reasons. For example, the whole question of the Korean war and the United Nations comes into this category.

That is very wide of this Amendment, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the Amendment.

With very great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I believe that it is absolutely relevant to this Amendment in that I am, as it were, putting my remarks in interrogatory form. I want to know whether certain circumstances, of which I think the Ismailia incident may be one example, and, I feel, possibly the Korean war would be a better one, would be covered by the situation created by this Amendment if it were accepted.

Let us take the case of the Korean war, which started, as we all agree, with an attack made by the North Koreans on the South Koreans, and it was decided by H.M. Government, in consultation with the United Nations, to initiate armed operations. I use the word "initiate" deliberately, because, in fighting the North Koreans, it was H.M. Government that decided to initiate operations.

I feel that any Clause which deals with the definition of an enemy is bound to be weak if it does not include the possibility of Her Majesty herself deciding to take action against organised forces or unorganised forces whom she may believe to be her enemy. This question could have arisen in the case of the Korean war in that, before the first British troops landed in South Korea, there was no definition in the Army Act which would have made the North Koreans, aggressors though they were, into an enemy. When the first British troops went into action against the North Koreans it was the British troops who initiated the armed operations and not the North Koreans.

I want to know whether there is anything in that point. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am not a legal man, and on reading the Amendment it occurred to me that no definition of an enemy could be satisfactory unless it included those against whom Her Majesty decided to take action and not simply those who took action against Her Majesty. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman or the right hon. Gentleman would intervene at this stage.

I intervene only because I am interested in the subject sought to be covered by the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) about the possibility of the use of troops in industrial disputes. When the Secretary of State intervened, I thought he had completely met the point, and I shared the gratitude expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, for his accommodation in doing that, but since then my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has seemed to my lay mind to have put a pertinent question to which so far no answer has been vouchsafed.

I should have thought that the word "armed" meant "armed with firearms," and if it does mean that, and we can be so assured, then the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment meets the point so far as industrial disputes are concerned, because workers in industrial disputes do not run around with firearms, and if they do they ought to be brought under control, but if we cannot be specifically assured that it means "armed with firearms," then an important question arises.

If a worker in an industrial dispute walks out of the factory with a one-and-a-half inch spanner in his pocket, a weapon which can be lethal if used for a purpose other than that for which the maker intended it, is he considered to be armed? If the answer is in the affirmative, then I fear the action which the right hon. Gentleman has taken in all good faith, to meet the point of the Amendment about industrial disputes, in fact does not meet that point.

There is a difficulty of definition which I think my hon. Friends and I are entitled to press on the right hon. Gentleman. It will be recalled by many hon. Members, for instance, that in the early days after D-day there was not much sugar about and it was regarded in certain sections of the Resistance Movement as a good thing to put what limited supplies they had into petrol tanks. That constituted a weapon.

I think that even the Solicitor-General, who, I hope, will give us a far clearer idea of what we are about, will agree that if a vehicle engaged upon active military operations were to have sugar put into its petrol tank, then that sugar would become an arm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) said, the same thing applies to all sorts of things when people have no actual firearms. An ounce of sugar or a spanner or a steel file in certain circumstances in war can constitute a far more formidable weapon than a Sten gun or a rifle.

The difficulties that have been expressed by my hon. Friends, and in particular the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) might at any rate be partly met if the Secretary of State would consider a suggestion that I made previously that there should be some attempt in the definition or interpretation Clauses to define the word "operations." I think that if we had that word defined properly, as far as it was possible, then the qualifying epithets would be slightly less ambiguous or difficult, and would not involve any of the risks to which my hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end, to add:

In the definition of "reserve forces," in paragraph (9) of section one hundred and ninety of the Army Act, the words "including the militia," shall be omitted.

I hope I can deal quite shortly with this point which, I hope, will commend itself to hon. Gentlemen opposite as one of the non-controversial Amendments which perhaps we can accept. It deals with this strange expression which still remains in the Army Act, but which is dropped by way of definition. It refers to the militia. In the first place, men of the militia consisted of the old militia that existed before the Territorial Reserve Act of 1907. But, as the Solicitor-General will know, it then disappeared and became the Special Reserve and in 1921, under Section 3 of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act certain people of the Special Reserve were given the name of militia and particularly of militiamen.

While, in fact, the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act has itself disappeared, in the first two sections of the Armed Reserves Act there is considerable discussion of what are described as "men" and subsequently described as "men and noncommissioned officers" who are members of the Reserve. There are two classes in the Reserve, Class 1, and Class 2 which are the Chelsea out-pensioners and people of that sort.

It would, therefore, look as if these words "including the militia" means those militiamen under this Act. But if we look at Section 175 (10) of the Act itself we find the words

"where any reserve officer within the meaning of the Royal Warrant regulating the position of the Reserve, holding a commission as an officer in the militia at all times. …"

Perhaps the Solicitor-General would tell us who are these officers holding commissions in the Militia, and why they should be subject, unlike any other Reserve officers, to the Act all the time? As far as I can see, Reserve officers are generally defined as people only from time to time subject to military law, and it looks as if these two definitions are quite contradictory. I do not know what officers of the Militia exist at the moment. If we are going to have the Militia mentioned at all, it should be defined. Is it the militia under Section 2 of the 1950 Act, or not? If so, who are these officers, and why should they be treated differently from Reserve officers?

If the militia is included in the Reserve, how can we then treat differently officers of the militia from the officers of the Reserve who are included together in the definition? It seems to me that we might go back to the old Act of 1879, which at least defined "militia" in the terms of the old fashioned militia that existed then. If we have a new militia, we at least ought to have a new definition and avoid the confusion which leads people to think that, in the first place we are referring to the old militia and, second, to give the impression that the militia is a body of its own, separately organised, with its separate officers. This is unsatisfactory. I do not know whether this is the best place to clear it up, but I hope that a statement will be made on this Amendment which I have just moved.

Two things are clear as a result of the short discussion and long examination we have given to this problem. The first is that the hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) has dealt carefully and, I think, accurately with one of the anachronisms which were referred to in the debate yesterday. The second thing is that, having returned to the calm waters of considering the Bill in the present, from the rather turbulent waters of considering the Bill in the future, I should be the last to disturb the aura of geniality which has settled on the Committee at this moment. Having thought out the Amendment, and having considered what the hon. Gentleman has submitted to us, may I say that we are prepared to accept his Amendment.

May I put this point? If it is necessary to leave in the Army Act a definition of the Reserve Forces and the Amendment is accepted and the militia is excepted, we shall have this left:

"The expression 'auxiliary forces' means the army reserve force:"

Surely that is rather inadequate. If it is necessary at all to have anything in like this, in view of the changes which have taken place in the Army Reserve, we ought to have a slightly more precise definition. I am sure my hon. Friend will want to say how grateful we are to the Government for accepting his Amendment, but before that, will the Secretary of State say that the Government will look at this again?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Amendment will be made by a new Clause, as my hon. Friend has said—

No, he did not say that.

What we propose to do—if I may anticipate the next Amendment without going out of order—is to incorporate both of these Amendments in a new Clause. That particular phraseology will be looked after in the Schedule to the Bill which, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know, will involve some 17 alterations. That shows the complexity of the Bill.

I want to bring one point to the attention of the Secretary of State for War, in view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said. He will remember that within the last three years we have started a Royal Marine Volunteer Reserve. It is quite clear, therefore, that the definition as it now stands, with the word "militia" excluded, saying that the Reserve is the Army Reserve, is not very satisfactory.

The Government might therefore consider whether there should not be inserted in the definition a reference to the Royal Marine Volunteer Reserve, which will come under the Army and Air Force Act in the same way as the Royal Marine Forces do when they are serving on the land today. I put that point to the Secretary of State for consideration when he is looking at this definition.

If it will assist the Committee, in view of the undertaking of the Secretary of State that he will deal with the matter by means of a new Clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end, to add:

In the definition of "auxiliary forces" in paragraph (12) of section one hundred and ninety of the Army Act the words "and the volunteers," shall be omitted.

This is a similar Amendment to that which has gone before, and the effect would be that in Section 190 (12) of the Act, the words, "and the volunteers" would be omitted. The last volunteers in the British Army were disbanded in the 1914–18 war. Although there is still power to raise volunteers, that has not been done for a long time, and it is unlikely to be done in future.

I should like to make the same plea as I did on the previous Amendment. If the words, "and the volunteers" are taken out, the words left will mean that the expression "auxiliary Forces" means "the Territorial Army," which is inadequate, and takes no account of the Women's Forces. Will the Secretary of State, if he is going to accept the Amendment, give an undertaking to put down an Amendment to make sense of what is left?

As I understand, there remain only two Sections of the Volunteer Act of 1763, yet strangely enough, volunteers still exist so far as the Isle of Man is concerned. I do not know whether it is of great importance, but as we do not have representatives of the Isle of Man here, and as I take an interest in Northern Ireland, I felt I ought to raise this problem of the "half-way house."

The difficulty about this Clause is that it is no longer clear what we mean by "volunteer." There is the old meaning of someone not pressed or conscripted, and the other meaning of someone who serves without remuneration. The original Act included militia and yeomanry. The only volunteers with whom we deal are the women volunteers. If the Secretary of State will look at paragraph (a) of Section 176 he will see at the end a proviso which excludes anyone who is a volunteer and a woman from the Act. We have an Amendment later on which deals with this point, but I thought it might be helpful to call attention to it now.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's researches have displayed that in the Act there are contradictions on the subject of volunteers, in that something is mentioned and simultaneously excluded. We propose to accept this Amendment, in the same way as the last, by embodying it in a new Clause. My answer to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is also identical with my last answer to him, as that itself was identical with the one that went before: it will be included in the Schedule, and we shall see that the amended definition does make sense.

In view of the Secretary of State's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

There is a point I should like to raise on the words we have now put into the Bill. It is on the question of the way in which the words go together, and I hope the Committee will not think it is too fanciful. The words read:

"pirates and all persons engaged in armed operations against any of Her Majesty's forces."

There is a real problem of international law to be considered in the case of Chiang-Kai-shek and China in regard to this matter. When we are dealing with the enemy and active service, we make any contacts, in certain circumstances, with such persons a matter that may involve the death penalty.

There is no doubt at all that under international law, in so far as General Chiang-Kai-shek interferes with any British ship, he is a pirate. I do not want to weary the Committee with any long extracts, but people generally accept Oppenheimer as the classic on this sort of thing. Oppenheimer says that where, during a civil war, men of war join the insurgents before they have been recognised as belligerent powers—we do not recognise Chiang-Kai-shek—it is evident that the legitimate Government—from our point of view, the People's Government of China—would treat such ships as pirates, but third parties ought not to do so so long as these vessels do not commit any act of violence against ships of those third parties.

Then he goes on to discuss a question discussed in a long debate in this House—the Peruvian ship that stopped a British ship during a civil war in Peru and which the British admiral, de Horsey, proceeded to torpedo, later, as a reprisal against an attack. This action was defended here with great brilliance by the Attorney-General of the day on the ground that the Peruvian was a pirate.

If Chiang-Kai-shek is stopping British ships and carrying them into Formosa—as we all know he is doing—when he is not recognised by this country as a belligerent, it is, without doubt, under international law an act of piracy. Once you reach that stage, you are involved in a position where anybody who discloses, say, the countersign or anything of that kind is committing an offence for which he could be executed.

I do not want to press this now, because it is a difficult point of law. It is also a point that ought to be looked at with some little care, because we are getting ourselves in a terrible mess here, from the international and legal points of view. We are allies of the Americans who have recognised Chiang-Kai-shek, but, at the same time, we say that somebody who deals with Chiang-Kai-shek may be subjected to the death penalty, because we have included in the Army Act a definition making these people pirates. It should be looked into at a later stage in a little more detail to make certain that our definitions do fit in with the actual facts of international life.

I raise this point now, because the Amendment which has been made to include these words is designed to deal with the current situation. Of course, there ought also to be an Amendment to leave out "pirates" in order to deal with the Formosan situation. Therefore, this is quite a practical point—and I am glad to see both Law Officers here—which needs attention.

Perhaps I may revert for a moment to the question that was raised in discussing the Amendment moved by the Secretary of State on the definition of the word "armed". I am sorry that a genuine question, put perfectly courteously, as I thought, and with a real intent to elicit information by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and myself, elicited no answer whatever from the Government Front Bench. This is a matter of substance.

We cannot go back to that Amendment.

But we are discussing a word which is now in the Clause, Sir Charles. The Committee passed the Amendment, the Clause now says "armed operations," and one is entitled to inquire what the word "armed" means.

The importance of this arises from the fact that the Secretary of State brought forward the word "armed" and had it included in the Clause with the unanimous consent of the Committee to ensure, as he said, that the Clause would not cover the use of troops in industrial disputes. It does cover the use of troops in industrial disputes if the word "armed" means as you, Sir Charles, and I would take it normally to mean—armed with firearms. If it does not mean that, the very point of the change in the Clause and of the wording which we now have in the Clause is not meant at all.

If a workman in an industrial dispute leaves his factory with a handful of bolts in his pocket which could be used as missiles and he is thereby considered to be armed, the point which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to introduce into the words of the Clause has not been obtained. I should have thought that one of the occupants of the Government Front Bench would seek to give an answer to a genuine question, put courteously and in a desire to elicit information.

I should like to press the matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) has raised.

I was waiting to answer at the end of the hon. Members' speeches, but I can certainly reply now. In addition to the expressions "armed mutineers," "armed rioters" and "armed operations," the word "armed" appears in many places in the Army Act, and I do not think one is capable of giving a precise definition of what constitutes the arming for the armed rioter, the armed mutineer or the armed operations. It must, in each case, be a question of degree and of fact.

What the hon. Member is concerned about is the relationship of that to an industrial dispute. We have done, as my right hon. Friend said, what we can to meet that point and I think we have gone a long way to meet it, even if we have not been able completely to solve the problem, and for this reason. The presence of:

"armed mutineers, armed rebels, armed rioters, and pirates"

within the definition of the section will not have any effect on those who are armed as the immediate result. The effect will be to put troops on active service if they are engaged on operations against them. It is only a significance for making it "on active service."

I do not think that there will be any difficulty in deciding whether the operations are armed operations or not. I do not think it is possible to give a precise definition to the word "armed." That might lead to more difficulties and confusion than if it was left to have its ordinary, natural meaning.

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) questioned whether it was possible to define "operations" and whether that would not overcome the difficulty. We will certainly consider that, but I feel some doubt whether it will be possible to arrive at a definition which gives greater precision and does not complicate the issue still more. I feel that both sides of the Committee are in entire agreement about what we want to achieve, and we shall certainly see further whether we can make any improvement. I think the fears of the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), are slightly unnecessary, or at least I hope they will prove to be so; and I hope the Committee is satisfied that we shall do our best to meet this point.

May I press the Solicitor-General further on the definition of the word "enemy," because it does not only affect the definition of "active service?" Section 4 (4) of the Act states that every person subject to military law who:

"assists the enemy with arms, ammunition, or supplies, or knowingly harbours an enemy not being a prisoner …"

is committing an offence which:

"shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer death, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned."

If we include a pirate within the definition "enemy," Chiang-Kai-shek is a pirate, or his troops are pirates. If the Governor of Hong Kong were to be so foolish as to entertain a Chiang-Kai-shek emissary he would be liable to the death penalty, under this drafting. I do not think that is good drafting. It would be a reprehensible act for any Governor to have dealings with Chiang-Kai-shek emissaries, and I do not think the Governor of Hong Kong would have any, but if he did, to my mind a penalty of a few years imprisonment would be more appropriate than death. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) produced the case of Pilot Officer Pendulum in the debate on this Bill—

I also remember the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) describing good lawyers and bad, and with his view I heartily agreed. The hon. and learned Member must realise that there is the great advantage that Pilot Officer Pendulum can be detained on probation to ensure that justice is done without inconvenience to him or anybody else.

I am glad the hon. and learned Member produces that point because some of his hon. Friends, not understanding the Act, might have been led astray. I was referring to Pilot Officer Pendulum. May I go on to refer to a higher officer, General Post, who occupies posts of various sorts from place to place? Suppose he is attached to the United States Forces and finds himself, for good or ill, obliged to disclose to Chiang-Kai-shek, directly or indirectly, the countersign or password. We have a mass of difficulties in the Act and if we do not clean them up where will we be?

It may be said that all this is nonsense [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I quite agree. That is why we should not incorporate it in the Act; and when it is suggested it should be cleared up by an inter-Departmental committee it seems to me that people have not gone far enough into the matter. These officers might be instructed by the party opposite to get into touch with Chiang-Kai-shek and I do not see why they should be subject to the death penalty because hon. Members opposite cannot be bothered to discuss the Army Act at a reasonable hour of the day.

I say that "enemy" affects all Sections of the Act and one must not have dealings with an enemy. One must not have dealings with a pirate. That is clear, and if the Solicitor-General does not accept that I am ready to give him a ruling on the subject by a predecessor of his when he was dealing with the sinking of the "Huascar," in which he pointed out this was such a proposition of international law that nobody who was recognised as a belligerent and interfered with a British ship was responsible animo furando.

Not furando, surely.

Well, furandi. If I have not the facility to pronounce it at this time of night, the Attorney-General knows what I mean. The position is that it is quite clear that Chiang-Kai-shek is a pirate and, under these circumstances, it does not seem to be desirable that we should put in a Clause which makes any dealing with him an offence punishable by death. It is more suitable to have some lower and more proper penalty.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is repeating the argument which he put earlier in his speech.

I did so because I did not think that the Attorney-General appreciated it, but now I think he has done so, I will leave it at that and I hope I shall have a reply from him or the Solicitor-General.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out from "forces," to "(hereinafter," in line 4.

The purpose of this Amendment is to enable officers below the rank of major to take affidavits and declarations from persons serving in the Forces of the Crown outside the United Kingdom. I am well aware that this provision seeks to incorporate, in legislative form, a very useful provision which was first introduced by virtue of the Armed Forces (Administration of Oaths) Order, 1940. It so happened, at that period during the war, I was connected with a legal aid scheme and in that capacity I had occasion to deal with many thousands of the documents to which reference is made in this Clause. It was a very great boon to Service men to be able to put in affidavits or declarations without having to find a solicitor or a commissioner of oaths. That would be difficult in some of the theatres in which these men were serving.

It seems to me to be quite unnecessary that the same provision should be repeated in this Clause, which does not allow an officer below the rank of major to take an affidavit or a declaration. It is clear that a major does not necessarily have a more profound knowledge of the law than a captain, or that a captain has a much more profound knowledge of the law in relation to affidavits and declarations than a subaltern. In these circumstances it is suggested as reasonable that any commissioned officer ought to be able to take an affidavit or declaration.

It may well be that in conditions of service in Korea or Malaya a private or an n.c.o. may have the most infrequent occasion to see his major. It may be far more convenient for him to have the opportunity of contacting his immediate officer, and this would help him to complete the necessary transaction without, perhaps, having to travel miles back to battery H.Q. or regimental H.Q. In these circumstances, I do not think that the Government are taking any undue risk if they decide that the Amendment should be accepted.

I want to adduce just one more argument in favour of the Amendment. During the war it was, unfortunately, necessary, in quite a number of cases, to assist British prisoners-of-war in Germany with their divorce proceedings or other like legal proceedings in which they might have been involved. We found that the camp leaders rendered the most valuable services. Special provision was made to enable camp leaders in those British prisoner-of-war camps to witness or take affidavits or declarations. Those camp leaders were normally w.o.1's or w.o.2's. Those camp leaders did their job in this particular regard with really remarkable efficiency once they were given just the elementary basis on which to work. Some of those w.o.1's carried out their duties in this matter quite as efficiently as any officer of field rank to be found in any other part of the world.

In these circumstances I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept this not unreasonable Amendment. I think they would not be taking any undue risk if they allowed any officer of the Regular Forces to have the privilege of taking affidavits or declarations. I hope that this statement will not be held against me, but affidavits and declarations used to come in during the war, and the jurats and attestations were often so illegible it was not always possible to be quite sure of the rank of the officer at all. In come cases, anyhow, I have reason to believe, the attesting officers were only lieutenants or captains. Their signatures were so illegible that the officers before whom the documents eventually went could not possibly have been quite certain that the officers who signed the affidavits were of the rank of major or above.

The Amendment will be a very great convenience to Service men if they are not to be put to the additional difficulty of having in some instances to travel long distances before finding officers of field rank, and I hope the Government will accept it.

I am rather disturbed that we hear so much the views of officers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said last night, he and I are the only two Members of the Committee who have served in the Forces and who did not reach commissioned rank in either of the two Great Wars or at all. So the preponderence of argument on almost every Army question is with the point of view of the commissioned officers.

I hope that, when we are looking at the revision of the Army Act, there will be adequate representation of the point of view of the private soldier and the non-commissioned officer. The signing of affidavits is to be brought down to the rank of subaltern, but why not bring it down to the rank of warrant officer? Probably the warrant officer would be far more in contact with the men than the subaltern. Why not bring it down to the chaplain? I do not know whether he has any rank, but he is a kind of semi-commissioned officer who might be brought into this job of signing affidavits. Why not the orderly room clerk, who is usually a sergeant or a corporal and in close touch with the men?

Let some of my hon. Friends on this side not insist so much on the rights of officers, but have a little more to say about the rights of the private soldier and the people below commissioned rank.

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to say a little about this matter now, and attempt to stop what looks like an incipient split between the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment and his hon. and gallant Friend who supported it.

I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. It is perfectly true, as has been said, that this makes permanent what has been going on since 1940 under an Order. It has worked perfectly well. I have made inquiries to discover whether any flaws had shown themselves in this matter in the many years during which great calls have been made on the facilities made available in this way.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman made comments about convenience, but I think the Committee will agree that the whole purpose of this Section is the convenience of the troops and their families. A considerable amount of convenience will be afforded them by avoiding the necessity for witnesses, travelling and the cost involved which would be the case if these facilities were not there, but I think there is a limit to the amount of convenience that we must search out if, in fact, we find that what is going on just now is working well.

Officers of field rank are not very difficult to find. There must be very few places in the world where, if there are bodies of troops, an officer of field rank is not very close by. It is not just a question of our doing this to carry out the task of signing affidavits, and so on, but that the whole process, it seems to me, has to be invested with a certain importance and gravity, and that it is emphasised that this right is treated in the civil courts under the ordinary law of the land.

I understand, for example, that only certain members of embassies are allowed to administer these matters, and they are fairly high in the embassy ranks. I understand further that only after a solicitor has served for a number of years can he be appointed a commissioner for oaths.

It would be a different matter if this were not already working satisfactorily, and I should be much more willing to listen to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's submission, but, as it has worked for a number of years perfectly well, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

I hope we shall look at this again, because there seems to be some contradiction. An officer below field rank can be president of a court-martial, or in some circumstances even a convening officer or a reviewing officer, as the Attorney-General knows. His most important function is perhaps that of president of a court-martial, because there he administers the oath. It seems to be something of a contradiction that, while he can administer the oath for a man to give evidence in front of him, he cannot recognise an affidavit, which may be signed in front of him, as evidence before him in the court of which he is president.

If that situation is to exist, we may have to consider, when we come to the court-martial proceedure, whether there should not be a rule that nobody below field rank should be president of a court-martial. But that is not the rule at the moment, and it seems that the man who can administer the oath cannot even witness it.

The hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it is very unusual to find a man below field rank as president of a court-martial, even in war-time.

But it can happen.

But it is unusual. This procedure has worked well and there is something to be said for keeping it as it is. When affidavits are sent back to this country, one is entitled to place great reliance on them, and it may be that more care will be taken in the preparation of the affidavit and in what it contains if the man knows it is going to be sworn before an officer of field rank.

There has been no difficulty whatever in the machinery, which has worked extremely well, and reliance has been placed on it. If it could be shown that there had been real difficulty in obtaining evidence by affidavit or declaration, there might be some argument for lowering the rank, but that argument has not been advanced. It is an improvement to replace the Regulation which has been in force since 1940 by a permanent statutory provision, but I think we should be running a risk if we made an alteration in the system which has worked so well.

This is how it works in practice. A sergeant or petty officer brings a chap along and says, "Here is a chap who wants you to sign something." The officer says, "Does he? Where do I sign?" He puts on his signature and probably does not even see the man concerned. That is how it is done—that is the weight and authority and solemnity. It may sound all right, but I have explained what happens.

The hon. and learned Gentleman may know how it happens in one unit, but that is not the way it should be done and I am sure that it is not done in that way in many cases.

Is this under Section 174—"Entertainments under Service direction"? The way my hon. and learned Friend put it sounded very entertaining.

If it is for the convenience of the Committee, I suggest that we take the next two Amendments together.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, to leave out from "law," to the end of line 10.

The object of this Amendment and the next arises out of some anxiety as to whether, under subsection (2), the category of people who can be given this convenience of swearing in front of an officer is too wide. According to subsection (1), it applies to persons subject to military law—and that, of course, is agreed. The Amendment questions whether we should include persons not subject to military law

"who are employed by or are in the service of … Her Majesty's Forces."

The second Amendment, in page 4, line 7, raises the question whether we should also include people who are neither under military law, nor in service with the Forces, but who accompany the Forces. If one looks at the next Clause one sees that the time and place where the affidavit is taken together with the full name and rank of the officer has to be stated. These are matters which can be taken from the affidavit itself, but the affidavit is not evidence, I understand, that the man is employed by the Forces or that he accompanied the Forces. That, I think, would have to be proved independently.

Does the definition of "accompanying the forces" mean that he happens to be in some town with the Forces? "Employed by" may be a little easier to define, but why should not these civilians swear in front of a consular officer or some other civilian authority? Are we not likely to get into complications by giving a special privilege to people so vaguely described?

There is some force in this point. In the affidavits and statutory Regulations I used to see that the service details of the person were always set out and it was easy to see whether the person was entitled to swear an affidavit before an officer of field rank. The Under-Secretary said that this Clause puts into legislative form a Statutory Rule and Order which has been in force since 1940, but it did not apply to anything like the number of people that this Clause seeks to cover.

It covered specifically persons subject to the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, and the Air Force Act. I find it difficult to believe there can be any circumstances in which persons not subject to military law, who are not employed by or in the service of the troops, or accompanying the troops, can be in any sense of the definition be subject to the Army Act. The Clause considerably widens the original provisions of 1940 to include an indefinite number of camp followers, and goodness knows who they are. If there is a new category of person or persons, then we are entitled to a further explanation if the Government does not propose to accept the Amendment.

Before the hon. and learned Gentleman replies, may I ask a question for clarification? On the face of it, it seems as if this subsection is widely drafted. For example, it would appear to cover in the Canal Zone, before the present disturbances began, very nearly 100,000 Egyptians who were employed by the military authorities in that area. Does it mean that, although no one is in any way subject to military law, they could take advantage of this provision? Is it intended to cover people employed as unskilled labourers having no connection with this country except in so far as they are bound by a contract of employment?

I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that this provision is of great advantage to British subjects for use in the courts here and, it may be, later for use perhaps in other courts. It makes it possible to obtain evidence without bringing a witness to the court. If the words covered by the Amendment were left out it would mean that the only people who could swear these affidavits, which might be required by other parties, would be those actually subject to military law. We think it right that this power to swear affidavits and make declarations in this fashion should cover those employed by or in the service of or accompanying Her Majesty's troops.

The word "accompanying" means families. There is no difficulty about that. If we restricted this Clause, it would mean that whereas we could take an affidavit to prove a perfectly formal matter from a soldier, if the soldier's wife had been there and seen the incident happen and not the soldier, we could not get an affidavit from her. That would be a pity.

To take the example of the Canal Zone, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, it might be a great advantage—perhaps in the case of divorce proceedings in this country—to get affidavit evidence from, say, one of those Egyptians if employed by Her Majesty's Forces. It would be a disadvantage if the Clause were narrowed by the acceptance of either of these Amendments.

What about civilians with whom soldiers may be billeted? I suppose they could be described as coming within the terms of this Clause as being in the service of or accompanying Her Majesty's troops? If civilians here who lead their normal lives may be subject to military law as well as to civilian law, surely the Clause is too widely drawn? It might even include civilians outside the United Kingdom.

This Clause makes no one subject to military law and it applies only to places outside the United Kingdom. In answer to the other question put by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), if one is billeted in a house it does not mean that the landlord or owner of the house becomes one's servant.

The hon. and learned Gentleman made a reference to British subjects. Did I understand him to indicate that it was intended that the benefits of this Clause should be limited to British subjects? I should have thought that, as it stands, it does not.

I was endeavouring to indicate the way in which the Clause would operate. As the hon. Member will appreciate from the Clause, it is of general application.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at the end, to insert:

Provided always that such persons are domiciled in the United Kingdom.

This Amendment deals with a rather difficult phrase, namely, "Provided always that such persons are domiciled in the United Kingdom." The difficulty is that the vast majority of these affidavits are dealing with divorce or property matters. So far as divorce matters are concerned, the law which is applicable is that of the domicile of the parties. So far as their property is concerned, it may be the law of domicile, or it may be the law of the place where the property is. By our statutes we can only decide what is evidence in our courts.

Where people are led to believe that they are creating evidence, but are not, in fact, creating a document which will be evidence in the court which has jurisdiction in the matter, a great deal of trouble and confusion may arise. For instance, an affidavit prepared pursuant to this Act would not be available as evidence in Eire. It would not be evidence because of this Statute. When we make an affidavit evidence, we can do so only in our courts. It would not be evidence in the courts of Eire or of France.

I feel that we ought to confine ourselves to people whose normal home is in England, and ought not to extend it to people whose domicile is outside this country, and who would normally swear before a consul. If they did not swear before a consul because they are led to believe that they can swear before an officer they might find themselves in difficulties.

I think that even at this early hour I have gathered the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman is making in support of the Amendment; but I cannot accept it. When the hon. and learned Gentleman realises the effect it would have, I do not think he will want it carried into the Bill. It would mean that the power of making affidavits and declarations would be so drastically reduced as to rob the Clause of a great deal of its effect. Sup- posing a man wanted an affidavit from an Egyptian or a Cypriot, he could not get it. Therefore, this Amendment would serve no useful purpose. In the Canal Zone I think it may well be more convenient to swear before a major. A major may be more easily found than a consul. Why should the man not have the choice? The Amendment would be a restriction without advantage.

Of all the difficult questions one has to consider fairly frequently domicile ranks high. If the admissibility of an affidavit as evidence is to depend on the correct determination of the domicile of the person who has sworn it, that may lead to situations of difficulty, and to the Clause not being as effective as it ought to be.

We believe that the Clause as it now stands—carrying into permanent effect what has been a Regulation until now, a Regulation that has worked extremely well—will be found to be beneficial to those subject to military law, and to those who accompany them and those who are in the employ of Her Majesty's Forces. I hope I have satisfied the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Amendment would have a very harmful effect, which I am sure he does not want.

I should have thought it desirable to confine this to British soldiers, their families, and English people who are employed or in company with the Forces. But since the learned Solicitor-General expresses these views I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 44, to leave out "twenty-two," and to insert "thirty."

In 1950 the Opposition put down an Amendment to the Army Act to the effect that the Regular soldier should be free, if he desired, to enlist for 30 years. At that time I pointed out that there were difficulties in the proposal, and the Committee took the same view. In 1951, an Amendment was put down that eventually became Section 85 of the Act. Now we have come full circle, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) has put down this Amendment which, in a way, does what hon. Gentlemen opposite asked for two years ago. The difference is the Secretary of State's proposal that a soldier should not swallow everything at one gulp, but should be able to take it, if he desires, at three-year intervals.

I am not sure that my right hon. Friend had in mind anything other than a desire to provoke a discussion on this Clause. The Secretary of State's proposal is that a soldier should now be enabled to undertake a 22-year engagement and then, at intervals of three years, elect to leave the Service. I ask the Committee to imagine two young men who are making up their minds to join the Regular Army. One, influenced by War Office propaganda, decides to undertake an engagement of 22 years. The second, perhaps not so sure of himself, decides he will not undertake 22 years but the least engagement he can—three years with the Colours and four years on the Reserve. The first young man undertakes an engagement for 22 years, and his rate of pay is 7s. a day. The second young man starts on the same pay and at the end of his three years' engagement decides that he likes the Army and will stay on. He therefore turns his three years' Colour engagement and four years with the Reserve into seven years with the Colours. He at once gets a bounty of £25.

Four years later, the second young man decides to turn his engagement of seven years and five years to 12 years with the Colours, and so he gets his second bounty of £50. Then, at the end of the 12 years, he decides to undertake an engagement of 22 years—in other words, to bring him into line with the first young man—and he gets a bounty of £100.

1.15 a.m.

If I am right, how many recruits does the Secretary of State expect to undertake an engagement at one bite of 22 years when the reward that the second man gets is £175 in respect of his three bounties, whereas the first man undertakes an engagement of 22 years at one go and gets no bounty whatever?

That is not all the story. A soldier now serving on a long-service engagement can at the end of 12 years ask for a free discharge and on three months' notice can leave the Army. That privilege will not be open to the recruit who undertakes the Secretary of State's offered engagement of 22 years. He can go out only at three-yearly intervals.

I point out to the Secretary of State the same thing that I pointed out to him two years ago: that he fails to understand the psychology of the Regular soldier who is moving towards the middle of his Regular engagement; the man who after 12 years' service is making up his mind whether he will remain in the Army.

When that man has completed 12 years' service, when he gets to the point of undertaking his long-term engagement, what begins to worry him is his thoughts of a home and a job. If a job comes along, he wants to be free to leave the Army at quite short notice, having done 12 or more years' service, and to take the job. Under the Secretary of State's proposals, however, if the man is to accept the job it must come along when he is nearing one of his three-year cycles.

The right hon. Gentleman is, in other words, putting forward proposals which, under the guise of making concessions, deny to the enthusiastic soldier £175 if he undertakes the Secretary of State's engagement, and at the same time impose upon him limitations as regards leaving the Army from which a soldier with 12 or more years' service is at present exempt.

There are other points I could mention in connection with the Secretary of State's proposals but I hope that I have said enough, having moved the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. I ask the Secretary of State to tell me whether I am wrong, particularly on the matter of the bounty. If so, I should not like my words to go out from here, because they might deter young men who are contemplating an engagement. If, however, my figures are right, I should like the Secretary of State to say how many recruits he expects to get.

If any young man undertakes a 22 years' engagement and forfeits bounties to the value of £175 by so doing, he needs to have his head examined. If there be such a young man who takes a 22 years' engagement and, in his enthusiasm bites off 22 years and swallows them at one gulp, once enlisted he can still escape from the clutches of the Secretary of State for War under the right hon. Gentleman's own proposal and still have the bounty. All he has to do at the end of three years' service is to give notice to his commanding officer that he has had enough and go home and then re-enlist elsewhere and receive the £25 bounty for so doing.

I beg to move, "That the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

It is getting quite late and we have had considerable discussion on this very important Bill. We are all agreed on that. But we have also had the opportunity of further considering the course of business and how best in our view, and I hope the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), who is in charge of the debate for the Opposition, this matter can be handled. I suggest—and I hope it will be agreeable—that we should now go home on the general understanding that there will be two inter-dependent conditions. They are, on the one hand, that a great number of new Clauses which have been put down to be added to the Bill should disappear from the Order Paper—

No, that has never been said before.

—and, on the other hand, that a committee or committees—as the case may be—shall be set up, the exact status, membership and terms of reference to be settled through the usual channels. The purpose of the committee or committees—I put it in that form because I earlier spoke on the subject and the Leader of the Opposition also mentioned the matter—would be to discuss the amendment of the Army Act, 1953, for which purpose there is a suitable period of time before that Bill has to be printed.

That does not mean that necessarily there will be no further debate on this Bill, because there are Amendments which my right hon. Friend proposes shall be inserted in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill this year. But I must make it quite clear that any further de- bate which may be required on this Bill will have to take place on a particular day after the normal business which has been announced for that day.

There can be no question of putting the Bill down, for example, as the first Order because we are rapidly approaching the period of the Recess and it is necessary to get the Bill through. If the Committee so desire it will be possible to discuss the Bill in further detail, but it cannot come as a first Order. That is the suggestion I make to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West, and I hope it will be agreeable.

No.

I was not addressing the hon. Member, but the Committee as a whole.

I have not intervened before in this matter and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is suggesting to the Committee that some new agreement has been arrived at and that something has been added since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who is in charge of this matter, left the Chamber some time ago. If so, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say how and when a new agreement has been come to. If there has not been a new agreement there is no reason why we should start at this hour to recapitulate what was so clearly agreed to a few hours ago between the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Is it suggested that some new terms have been imported into this matter? I have never heard it suggested before that there would be some strict terms on which certain Amendments would be abandoned. Indeed, the Secretary of State for War was good enough to say he was prepared to accept some of the new Clauses.

When I made this proposal at the start of the discussion on this point this evening, I said that in the event of a committee being set up the time of hon. Members who had put forward new Clauses would not be wasted, because the effect of those Clauses would be considered by that committee. I also stated yesterday, when we were considering the new Clauses, that some of them would have been accepted, but that acceptance applied to yesterday when the question of the committee had not arisen. I made it abundantly clear in the statement I made that the new Clauses would be stopped, and referred to the committee.

rose—

Has the Leader of the House finished his speech, or not?

I have said all I wanted to say, Sir Charles, and I was hoping to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), who is in charge of the Bill for the Opposition, has to say.

As I understand the proposal of the Leader of the House, which, I think, is a sensible one, it is that we should conclude our discussion this evening. If I heard him clearly, and I will repeat it to get it exact, he was recapitulating the terms of the understanding which was made with the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the evening. I entirely agree that we have neither desire nor the will to depart from that agreement in any way.

I think the essence of what the Leader of the House has proposed is contained in words which he used, that the quid, which he has given from the one side, against the quo he has given from the other, are strictly interdependent. One is not given without the other. I am sure my hon. Friends agree that it has been the suggestion from the beginning that, as an alternative to pressing the new Clauses, which are found at the middle of page 312 of the Order Paper, they are referred to this committee or committees which are proposed.

We have not settled, and we cannot pretend to settle, tonight, whether it is one committee or two committees, or what its form or forms will be. The Leader of the Opposition was clear that he accepted, in principle, the setting up of the committee or committees, and we must work out what is the best form. I do not pretend to know at this stage. On the understanding they are successfully set up, and that is agreed, then it is also agreed that these new Clauses disappear—

No, no.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) is now putting a totally new proposition, as far as I can understand, that these Clauses should be discussed both by this Committee and the matters referred to a new Select Committee or other kind of committee which has to be set up. Surely we cannot have it both ways. Is not my hon. and learned Friend confusing these new Clauses with the other very important and substantial matters we have to discuss on the Government's new Clauses?

I am sorry, but the Leader of the Opposition made this quite clear. He said he would use his endeavours to secure this agreement. When the Leader of the Opposition says that, everyone in the party who respects him, as we all do, knows that he will certainly do his best to succeed.

The point we are making is of importance to Parliament and to hon. Members. My right hon. Friend is saying that certain Clauses will disappear, Clauses which are proposed by hon. Members who are not here and have never heard the arrangements and who have never been heard. One cannot let that pass without the protest that any hon. Member of this Committee, who puts his name to an Amendment, must be consulted before his Amendment is withdrawn.

I have not finished yet.

The Leader of the Opposition made that clear and none of us dissented from it. The only reason we are concerned now is that it appears something new is to be imported.

With great respect, my hon. Friend—and very learned hon. Friend on the rules—is suggesting something which, if carried to a logical conclusion, would mean that this arrangement would be impossible. It is perfectly true, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition could only say he would use his best endeavours to do this. He cannot take away the right of hon. Members of the Committee to keep a new Clause on the Order Paper. That is outside his powers, that is surely understood.

But, subject to that, it seems to me that the essence of the proposed arrange- ment is, as it has seemed to everyone, including my hon. Friends who have spoken from behind me, most reasonable. We are all trying to get a new Army Act, or to set up a committee or committees to which the substance of the matters put down on the Order Paper in the form of new Clauses can be referred. By that arrangement we certainly stand, and I see no harm in its being recapitulated now.

It is true that the Leader of the House made it perfectly clear that he also agreed that the discussion on Amendments to Clause 7, which we are just beginning, has to go on on some future occasion; the discussion will go on on the Amendments the Government move and our Amendments to their Amendments. It seems to me that there should be no room for dubiety about the nature of the understanding.

If the best endeavours of either side fail, and we cannot get agreement about this committee or committees, we go back to whence we started, and the Clauses would not disappear from the Order Paper, or, if they did, they would be put down again. There would be no difficulty about that. These two things, as the Leader of the House said perfectly fairly, are inter-dependent, and I honestly do not see why there should be any difficulty about the arrangement—although, of course, there may, I have no doubt, be some difficulty in working out the exact terms.

In my experience at 1.30 or 2 o'clock in the morning tempers are liable to be frayed, and people see differences where no differences exist. So far as I can gather—and hon. Members will not have to listen to me for long—the situation is quite simple. The right hon. Gentleman who moved to report Progress informed the Committee that the usual channels are to have a discussion about the formula. If that formula proves to be satisfactory, it will have certain consequential results for the Order Paper. What then results will be dependent on the satisfactory nature of the formula reached. In the meantime, while the discussions are continuing, the debate on this Bill is postponed. That is all. What the Opposition will do subsequently will depend upon the satisfactory nature of the proposals.

The Secretary of State said earlier in our proceedings that he attached great importance to the proposals he was making for long-service recruitment. I therefore did try, when he was absent from the Committee, and when almost every hon. Member opposite was absent, too, to examine the proposals he was putting before the Committee. The Leader of the House came in and with, I thought, precipitate discourtesy—I make no complaint on my own behalf, but in general—not caring twopence what was under consideration, without knowing what was under consideration, proceeded to move to report Progress.

Reporting Progress does not cut off the debate on the Amendment being discussed. This is not the Closure; it is not the same thing. That can be resumed on the next occasion.

Let us not bandy words. I asked the Secretary of State what was going to happen. I asked him if what I said about the bounties paid to a recruit who undertakes 22 years' service was wrong or not, and he—

That arises on the Amendment, not on the Question we are discussing.

I have put down a number of new Clauses and I am one of those hon. Members—perhaps the only one of my hon. Friends—who at the time was prepared to consider the wisdom of the Departmental committee. I think there are merits in that proposal, certainly in the first stage, but what I want is that the Secretary of State or the Leader of the House should undertake that, on the Report stage of the Bill, they will say something more about Clause 3, and that it must be linked with the proposal that the Bill we are considering should run to 31st July instead of 30th April.

I had hoped to put that question to the Foreign Secretary, but I was not successful in catching your eye, Sir Charles, and I was not able to do it at a later stage. If we accept this Motion, we are invited to consider whether the formula under consideration will include the question of the time limit.

I should like to make an appeal to the Leader of the House on the lines put forward by my hon. Friend. I can see no real reason for maintaining the present gap between the expiry of this Bill here and in other places, and I should have thought that on considerations of the time table, it could certainly do no harm to postpone the operation of the expiry of the Act until a later period.

I make that appeal in the most friendly and completely uncontroversial manner, and I quite appreciate that it may not be necessary. That may be so, but if by chance such a provision should be necessary, it will save us all a great deal of trouble and inconvenience and I can see no real objection to it.

I am not going to repeat the difficulty about the mythical character called "Pilot Officer Pendulum," whom I introduced last night, and who, I understand, has been attacked this evening. I only say in defence of the poor man that there was a real difficulty and that the trouble about barrack-room lawyers is that they are only too open to attack from their more legitimate friends.

I have no objection to Pilot Officer Pendulum, but I respectfully submit that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not in order on this matter.

I understand that the debate is still open. I should have thought that that was one of the matters which the committee or committees would be discussing.

As I told the Leader of the House in private, this is a matter which we pressed very strongly from this side of the Committee, but I do feel that I have not yet made the point quite clear and I will try to do it now. This is a matter that can be considered by the proposed commitee or committees which we are to set up. They are to deal with next year's Army Bill. What we are talking about now is this year's Army Bill. This is a matter which we shall press very strongly from this side of the Committee, but there is also the question of the type of the committee which is to be set up, on which we have not yet reached agreement. The Leader of the House is clear on that.

All these things will be pressed, but we have agreed to the principle of setting up a committee or committees and I think we shall find that we are able to reach agreement on these matters, although I cannot prophesy. If we do not, then we are back where we started, which will be unfortunate for the labours of both sides. But I think we shall find that we shall reach agreement, although we shall have rather less chance of doing so if we try to discuss these matters at this late hour of the night.