Skip to main content

Clause 7—(New Provisions With Respect To Enlistment)

Volume 498: debated on Thursday 3 April 1952

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, after "years," to insert:

"or after he has served twelve years by such notice given three months before any date he shall choose."
We on this side of the House attach great importance to this Amendment. It is nothing new. It covers a regulation which exists at present whereby a Regular soldier after 12 years can obtain a discharge free, having given three months' notice. We feel that the proposal which the Secretary of State has put forward which enables a man to enlist for a period of 22 years and then to leave the Service at three-year intervals will be much improved if he accepts our Amendment to give the same freedom, after 12 years, as a soldier has got at present.

I do not want to take up too much time, but what would happen to a Regular soldier when he is in the middle of his career is of very great importance both to his own contentment and to his value to the Army, and also to his potential value as a recruiting agent. This right of the Regular soldier to obtain a free discharge after 12 years is one which is greatly valued. I am sure that if it is removed—if it is a right denied to the recruits which the Secretary of State hopes to get as a result of his new proposals—then in the long run it must make for a great deal of discontent.

I am sure that the Secretary of State is fully seized of the point I am making. It is covered by the discharge provision in paragraph 399 (a) of Queen's Regulations, and I hope very much that he will he able to accept our Amendment. If he cannot, we should be much obliged if he would explain fully why he cannot do it. It seems such an obvious point that one almost wonders why he did not propose an Amendment himself. If I am wrong there must be some mistake in my reasoning, because it seems to me to be an obvious point.

I beg to second the Amendment.

There is very little I need add to what has been said. It will be remembered that this is one of the Amendments to Clause 7 that was not discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. Unless these words are added, the state of the serving soldier is worsened as compared with recruits. It seems essentially reasonable that men who have served 12 years should have this right by giving three months' notice terminating their service. I also hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept this Amendment.

I can assure both the hon. Members that this question has been considered. The whole system of engagement in the Army has up to now been on a 12-year basis, and there have been varying combinations of the period of Colour Service and Reserve Service. Both periods have been longer than the present engagement. They have been either five and seven years, or seven and five. We are proposing three-year intervals up to 22 years. A man who joins for 22 years can go after 12 years service, and what hon. Members are worried about is that after that period he must go after a short notice.

A man who has applied for 12 years service in the past can take on for 21. One of several different things may happen because there is great flexibility in this new engagement. One is that a man can go after 12 or 15 years. In addition, we have powers in the Act whereby a man can translate Colour service into Reserve service. We have no cause or reason to resist that type of conversion. In addition, a man can also apply whenever he wishes for compassionate reasons. By September, 1953, purchase will have returned. If we were to make the right to opt out at three month's notice we should be placed in a difficulty. I will give an instance.

Supposing under the present engagement a man was posted somewhere and found he did not look forward to it. He could choose to go at three months notice. He would be out and would be sent home to this country which he must reach by the time he has opted out. During that three months he could perhaps re-enlist and thereby avoid a certain period of service he did not wish to do.

I believe there has been great fairness in considering this regulation in the Bill whereby a man must give six month's notice before he opts out of his three-year period. To allow him to go at any time at only three months notice would result in a state of affairs whereby that right could be worked under a complicated system so that a man could take advantage of others and be posted to his own advantage.

I can assure hon. Members that this privilege has been carefully considered and we have come to the conclusion that, by and large, under the 22-year engagement a man has very good chances of going out, and is not really being held within the Service in any way which could suggest that we were prolonging his service.

Indeed, it is far less than the other engagement, although in the particular matter which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) raised one might make a case—but it is not a case which bears detailed examination—of exploitation, if one were to allow a man to complete 12 years and for the rest of the 10 years to give three months' notice.

The Secretary of State is no doubt aware that under the existing regulations there are safeguards to prevent the exploitation to which he has referred. He states that he has gone into this with great care. Do I understand that we are to have two sets of regulations operating at the same time?

2.30 a.m.

What this Amendment does is to introduce new regulations and, at the same time, states that the man on a previous type of engagement under the old regulations which we have repealed—which we have thrown into the sea—shall be pulled out of the sea, so to speak, and apply so long as he remains on the old type engagement. It will be applicable to him, although we have now thrown it over, and the period will arrive when this will disappear with what one might term the "old sweats", and will eventually drop out altogether.

The Secretary of State will agree that the concession applying to the Regular soldier at the present time is covered, not by the Army Act, but by King's Regulations, and I would like to ask if this regulation will apply until everybody comes under the new Part Two of the Army Act, and will then disappear?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and could I now ask if I am to understand that new regulations have been introduced where a man with 12 years' service can revert? As the Minister knows, the original period of engagement of a further 12 years was always partly with the colours and partly with the Reserve so that any service after 12 years does not arise unless the man takes on as a Supplementary Reservist or on a Class "D" engagement.

The hon. Member is quite right. No man who has completed 12 years' service has any Reserve liabilities, but any man who has completed 12 years and wishes to turn over to the 22 years' scheme can do so, and at once he comes under the 22 years' regulations. There are extremely detailed regulations within the Bill which cover convertibility of all out-of-date engagements on to the new 22 years' scheme. They cover, among many other things, the Royal Marines who wish to come on to our 22 years' engagement; I mention that because I think it was asked by an hon. Member opposite.

The entire Act, as amended by the House, will be before the Committee for its consideration.

I agree that this must be considered by the Committee, and I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has put forward. But, I am bound to think that this is an unfortunate bit of cheeseparing, not in money, but in time, on the part of the War Office. This is taking away a right perhaps not a very big one—from a set of men when there is an overall improvement. Surely, if one takes away something in a matter such as this, one is apt to spoil the whole of one's concession, and a concession has been made. I hope that the Minister will view this with an open mind.

It is the same point, in principle, as that which we discussed in relation to boys. The general idea that the Army can be built up by retaining men is very much open to question. The right of a man serving for 12 years to leave at three months has always existed, exists now, and it is a pity that it should be removed. I do submit that this will spoil the impact of the new scheme. Therefore, I do hope we will get our view on this taken very seriously into account.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[ Mr. Redmayne.]

2.36 a.m.

It would be a great mistake, in view of the large number of Members opposite who have remained here throughout this debate, although not having taken any active part in the matter except to listen to all the arguments put from this side, if I did not say a word in gratitude to them for having remained, and having remained silent. Our proceedings would have been far more attractive had they joined in, but I do not think they would have been any more valuable. I should like to say on behalf of my hon. Friend, who will want to say a word on the Third Reading, that we all very sincerely appreciate the arrangements made by the Secretary of State for War in order to facilitate the reform of this Bill.

As we are on a rather historic occasion, probably passing the Army Act in its old form for the last time, it is proper that one or two of us who have suffered under it should say, that while we are prepared to pass it on this occasion, we are glad to know this is the last occasion we shall be called upon to pass this particular Act. This is not a good Bill. It is a very bad Bill. It contains a great number of very bad provisions. Had we had the opportunity of dealing with them them, as we thought we would have, we should have dealt with the provision regarding barrack damages, an appalling thing. To any who have suffered under it, it is a most depressing thing. I do not know how many hon. Members opposite have been on a charge. If they have been, they will know how depressing it is, and in the absence of any opportunity of defending oneself, under the conditions which exist, it needed the utmost ingenuity to escape it.

The procedure regarding charges is one of those bad features which the Bill contains. It is unusual to reject the Army Act on its Third Reading, and I am not suggesting this now, but that is no reason why we should not notice its bad features and make it clear to the country that we do not accept it in its present form; and it will be clear that we on this side have been opposed to it throughout.

I hope that one or two of my hon. Friends will take the same point of view as myself and make clear, in saying "Good-bye" to this bad old Army Act, that we have in these two days done a really useful task for the ordinary men now being conscripted into the Forces, despite the silence of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in showing that, even though they remained silent, it is possible for an Opposition to reach a point where a bad Act can be repealed. All hon. Members on this side, and I am glad to see we are so well represented, can feel we have done a really good day's work. I for one, do not regret the time we have spent on this Measure.

2.39 a.m.

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), chose to end this debate on a party note. I agree that hon. Members have done a lot of work on this Bill, and I make no point about this protracted debate. We have brought in a Measure, which, we believe, will be of use to the Army. We have made certain Amendments. I have not the least doubt that if we had not done that, all this would not have happened. Let any hon. Gentleman attempt to claim the credit as he wishes, but I suggest that this has been the result of our amending the Army Act in order to improve the efficiency of Her Majesty's Forces, which is not particularly a party matter.

The Opposition have found an old cupboard full of bones, dust, and decaying matter. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman gets up to make a party point. The only party point I will make is that our Amendments, I believe, will be helpful to the Army, and that as a result of the action of the entire House we shall have a Bill much more worthy of the Army and Air Force than it was before.

In my opinion it is a pity that any party should claim credit for that fact. The credit belongs to the common sense of the House, which has got together and solved a difficult problem by producing a Bill which will be worth something. If we had not agreed upon this there would have been only one finish to this debate: an immense loss of sleep, a certain loss of temper, and a mangled mess of a Bill instead of what I hope we shall have after this committee has set to work. Surely we can leave this Bill now without any more quarrelling or any more attempts to claim credit for it. With the one desire of giving a proper instrument for governing Her Majesty's Army and Air Force, I hope the House of Commons will join together and do their best to make it worthy of the Forces.

2.41 a.m.

I had no intention of intervening on the Third Reading, but I do want to say a few words after the speech of the Secretary of State. I think it would be inappropriate and unfortunate to bandy party points at this stage, but I cannot allow his account of our proceedings to pass without some comment from this Front Bench. What has happened has not quite arisen in the way he suggested.

Certainly the right hon. Gentleman gave credit to the House as a whole, but let us not doubt that what has happened arose from the fact that we on this side—and I would certainly mention here my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) in particular—decided to make a very drastic and, indeed, protracted attempt to improve this Act, which had never been done before. That attempt did not have to be carried' through to its logical conclusion, but out of the clash which resulted, and certainly with no intention on the part of the Government when they first came to the House with the Measure—

Is it fair to say there was no attempt on the part of the Government? The party opposite was in power for six years, and the right hon. Gentleman himself was at the War Office for part of the time, but there was then not the slightest sign of their seeking the desirable end which he now claims. There was no sign or attempt to do anything about this Act. He now gets up and says there was no sign of Her Majesty's Government now doing anything about it. We have done something about it with all these Amendments. He had six years in which to do something about it, but nothing whatever was done. Need we really go into all this? [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs, but he has a very wobbly case indeed. He was Secretary of State for War; he could have read the Army Act perfectly well, and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch could have done the same.

I would point out that this is the Third Reading and not the Committee stage.

I will not follow up the right hon. Gentleman's extremely heated intervention but will proceed with the remarks I was making. It is not at all the case, as he has just stated, that the late Government made no amendment of the Army Act. They made a good many, and he has now produced some—and some useful ones, too. I was talking on the other issue.

We embarked on a major attempt, which would undoubtedly have detained the House for a very long time, to remodel this Act from top to bottom, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and others, did an immense amount of work on it. That work has not been directly fruitful in that their new Clauses were accepted, but out of the clash which resulted from their very strenuous opposition to the Government Measure, and because they and the party as a whole took that initiative, we are to have set up this committee, which I feel confident will result in a new and totally different Army Act, with a different date of termination and different Sections. It will be a thoroughly modernised Act. Certainly we on this side cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with the idea that that was done on the initiative of the Government.

It was done in the teeth of the original intentions of the Government, and it was done on the initiative of this side of the House. Since this claim and counterclaim have been made, I must state firmly for the Opposition that if this results in a vastly improved Army Act, which is a matter of importance to millions of citizens, the initiative will have come from the official Opposition.

2.45 a.m.

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch that this is an historic occasion. Therefore, I make no apology for saying a few words. The history of this subject is one of im- portance. The whole history of the British Army is one of spasmodic growth. It is a matter of significance that ever since there has been an army the Army Act has been kept in existence year after year by the Government of the day having to get the House to renew the Act. I agree that hon. Members on this side, and particularly the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), are entitled to a great deal of credit for the work they have done.

I think it was ungenerous of the Secretary of State for War not to acknowledge the value of a great many of the Amendments which have been discussed, and of several of the new Clauses which were put down; and especially of the Amendments which emerged from the Lewis and other Committees. No one can deny that but for the initiative and industry of the Opposition there would not have been this overhaul of the Army Act.

I would never go back on the fact, which I have stated repeatedly during the Debate, that many hon. Members have done a great deal of research in producing new Clauses. What I said, and repeat, is that we amended the Army Act and, as a result of having to bring it before the House, hon. Members opposite read the Act and found what it consisted of. I said, and say again, that I do not think there is much point in attempting to say that this or that Party is responsible. What really is responsible is the fact that this Act had not been touched since 1881, and that we opened it up, and now the House has decided to do something about it.

I think it is unfortunate that we should conclude—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that he opened up the Bill and brought it to the House. It had to come here. He had to come to Parliament to renew it. I do not want to claim any undue measure of credit. I believe that my hon. Friends and I were merely doing our duty, as members of an efficient Opposition, to examine this Army Act and to take the trouble to frame Amendments. I think we are entitled to credit for that. It is remarkable Parliamentary episode which we have witnessed during the last few days. I doubt whether the country has realised what would have been the effect on the Government, and on the Parliamentary timetable, if agreement had not been reached as a result of the goodwill we have shown.

For a long time it looked as if there would be no agreement, and even if there was an agreement between the two Front Benches, it by no means followed that all hon. Members on these benches who had put down Amendments would feel obliged to withdraw those Amendments. Does the country yet realise what the situation would have been? If there had been no agreement we should have been here on Committee and Report stages for several more days before we could come to the Third Reading, and it would have been the duty of the House to do it. It would have been the duty of the Government to give Parliamentary time to passing this Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill even at the cost of their National Health Bill and all the other Bills.

There is nothing about the Easter Recess or the accommodation between the Front Benches or any of these matters in the Bill.

I was led into the subject by the remarks made by the Secretary of State and by the intervention of the Patronage Secretary. It is worth while for the House to remind itself of the thanks due to the great industry and zeal of the Opposition over several weeks and to the great sense of co-operation and good will which they have shown towards Her Majesty's Government in the last day or so in rescuing them from a situation of very great Parliamentary embarrassment. We have now arrived at a stage when we can not only proceed to give this Bill a Third Reading but also look forward to the appointment of the Select Committee which will overhaul all the deficiencies of the Army Act and, in accordance with the promise made by the Government, enable us in a short time to have a new, modernised and up to date version of the Army Act.

2.53 a.m.

I should like to speed this Bill to its last resting place as one who over 40 years ago suffered from some of its provisions. My hon. Friends mentioned barrack room damages—it is hard lines when a teetotaller has to suffer as a result of the drunks coming in. That is what barrack room damages meant. There are other things, such as field punishment. I played a part in bringing field punishment to public attention, and suffered myself three months imprisonment in a civil gaol for doing so. I am glad to see the old form of field punishment is gone, and I hope that as a result of the deliberations of the committee which will be set up we shall further expunge from the Army Act those things which are outside civilised life to civilised people.

It has been done gradually, and I think we can congratulate ourselves. I do not wish to enter into controversy here tonight, but I am the only one who has not had his questions answered. I suppose, being a private, that can be expected. I asked the Secretary of State very earnestly whether he would see that the private soldier had representation on the Departmental Committee. There was no reply.

I have tried in these debates to be accommodating, and I appealed the other night for a pooling of brains and ideas. We get only silence from the other side. That is what hurts us. We are being condemned because there is only a small gallant band here and a horde over there, but the small band was vociferous and active while the horde was dumb. Surely, especially during the Committee stage, it was the duty of those who represent the various branches of Her Majesty's Forces—and there are many illustrious representatives of the forces over there—to make their contribution.

Another thing that hurt us was the sneer of the Leader of the House that we had a new-found concern for the armed forces and the Army in particular. In all my political life, which is fairly long now, the party opposite has claimed the Army almost as its personal property, and they resent us speaking on this issue. I would say to the Secretary of State only this—my hon. Friends came into this matter with a desire to co-operate, and we welcome the co-operation from that side that has brought about the promise to set up the Select Committee.

But we cannot let the occasion pass without reiterating that the hotch-potch Amendments to the Army Act, on the Secretary of State's own admission, would have left an ugly and cumbersome Bill. All the Acts of the Labour Government for six years have now been canalised into new Clauses and have provided the material for the Committee to work on. It is due to the initiative and drive of a few Opposition Members that this matter has been brought to a head. We have proved that you can negotiate from strength better than from weakness.

We realise the Secretary of State is tired and we appreciate his co-operation. It would be a pity if he went away under the illusion that this is the first time the Army Bill has been produced full of Amendments. His explosion just now rather suggested that he thought that what has taken place arose from the fact that he produced a Bill full of Amendments. But there have been discussions on the Bill before, sometimes lengthy.

Anybody who has examined what purports to be an up-to-date copy of the Army Act will see the number of occasions on which amending Bills have been produced. Now the Secretary of State points a finger at my right hon. Friend (Mr. Strachey) and says, "What did you do about it when you were in office?" I recall that the present Tory Secretary of State for War is not the only Secretary of State for War whom my hon. Friends have kept out of his bed, and from that point of view they have made it fair shares for all.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember some of the discussions on the Army in 1946 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), whom we are sorry is not in his place, was Secretary of State for War. Some of my hon. Friends were keen with reforming zeal at that time, and the right hon. Gentlemen may also remember the agitation for the reform of courts-martial, the establishment of the Lewis Committee, the agitation on the Report of the Lewis Committee, and the establishment of the Pilcher Committee. It was a pity that so few of the right hon. Gentleman's friends participated in that agitation to bring about the reform in that respect.

This necessity for a comprehensive reform of the Army Act has been developed over a long period of time, and my hon. Friends and myself are glad to have played a humble part in now having brought it to a climax so that we shall have the benefit of this Select Committee, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) said, we shall be guided by it in the kind of Bill which we will consider instead of the bits and pieces that compose the Army Act of 1881. On this side of the House, we are genuinely sorry that we have not had more co-operation from the back benchers opposite. We wish that there had been more Amendments on the Order Paper from the other side of the House, and that there had been more discussion on this Bill. It is certainly to be hoped that, when the Committee has reported on its work, the reforming zeal will not be left entirely to Members on this side of the House. It is in that hope that I am glad to be able to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

3.2 a.m.

I must confess to deep disappointment with the Secretary of State for War. After giving such great promise earlier this evening he lost his temper. Earlier tonight he was showing signs of having turned over a new leaf, and I was encouraged by his amiableness, his sweetness of temper and his prompt and quick understanding of the problems which we were discussing. Now, once again, I must return to my favourite topic of great Secretaries of State for War, the greatest of whom was Lord Haldane. I ventured to say earlier—

It is very much so. I am afraid that the noble Lord is right off the mark, and I commend him to read of the influence that Lord Haldane had upon this Act. His hand is to be seen all the way through it.

I am quite in order in saying of the Secretary of State for War, as I said earlier, that it was very encouraging to find him walking in the direction of one of his great predecessors. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has realised that one of the great virtues of a Secretary of State for War, and, indeed, of any Minister of the Crown, is humility, and the great difference between a Minister in office and a right hon. Gentleman in Opposition is that the former has to get legislation through. One of the ways to do that is to get the help of the Opposition side of the House in his task. If the Secretary of State will remember that—

Yes, and the Under-Secretary of State. If both will always remember that they will have much less trouble than they had on the Home Guard Bill. I have almost forgotten the habit of sleep now for almost a week—

On the contrary, Sir, although I accept your Ruling, my habits of sleep or no sleep will be reflected in this Bill, because if we had not been so diligent we would never have got the results we have obtained.

The Secretary of State is quite wrong in supposing that there have been no Army Acts since the end of the war. There has been an annual Bill each year, otherwise the Act would not be in operation. We have had parrot cries from hon. Members opposite as to what we have done in the past six years. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) answered that. The Secretary of State said that they discovered an old cupboard full of rusty contents. But when we discovered the old cupboard we knew what to do with the contents. This is what annoys hon. Members opposite, they had the opportunity a year ago, had they realised what could be done.

This, I am sure, is the first of many occasions when we shall have similar Measures and I hope the results will be beneficial. I am quite sure that the action we have taken since Monday on this Bill will be beneficial to the Army. Although the Secretary of State does not like it, I am sure that the fact that a Select Committee is to be set up and that we are to clear up the Army Act is due to the action taken on these benches.

If we have had co-operation from hon. Members opposite we have taught them to give it us. I quite agree that by this evening the co-operation is much more willing than on Monday and I hope that, in future, the Secretary of State will not only rejoice in having a good Bill but will rejoice that the steps we have taken which will be of great service to the Army and perhaps, from a personal point of view, appreciate the lessons which can be learned from the experience of the last week. If he will do that the few halting steps taken earlier this evening may act as a spur to the future and he may even aspire to be as great as Haldane himself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.