I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to add:

"Provided that in every such case the military prisoner, if he so desires, shall be entitled to serve his sentence in this country if he has been enlisted in this country."

I can only deal with the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper, but I should mention that there is a proviso to Section 64 of the Army Act which has not been interfered with at all by the Amendment which is being proposed by the Bill. That proviso says that if the term of his sentence exceeds 12 months a soldier shall be transferred as soon as practicable to a prison or detention barracks in the United Kingdom, with certain exceptions, and, therefore, in the main, the case of any soldier with a long sentence is already met. We have only altered something which comes in before the proviso, and, therefore, this Amendment is dealing with short sentences as well as long sentences. The hon. Member said that I should probably meet his argument by referring to short sentences. Of course I must meet him with a reference to short sentences, because, as he admits, it would be absurd for a soldier serving in, say, Singapore, who receives a sentence of 14 days' detention to be brought home to serve that sentence—a five weeks' journey home and a five weeks' journey back. That would be the effect of his Amendment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell me what is the change that is being made by the Bill? I know that the Army Act specifies a sentence of 12 months, but now the authorities are taking to themselves the power to exercise discretion in the matter.

I do not know whether I am entitled to discuss the whole of the Clause on this Amendment, but, if I am, I will gladly do so. The new Clause in the Bill states that so much of Sub-section (4) shall be amended as precedes the proviso, so the proviso remains exactly as it is now, and surely that meets the point which the hon. Member has had in mind. He desires that those who have to serve long sentences shall be brought home, and I can assure him that, generally speaking, and save for the few exceptions which are contained in Section 64, which are very unimportant and very unlikely to arise, men sentenced to long terms of imprisonment will be brought home. But his Amendment covers both the short sentence and the long sentence, and it would be absurd to bring a man home from the Far East to serve 14 days in this country. As far as long sentences are concerned, the case is met by the proviso.

As this Clause to amend a section of the Army Act, deals with a point of the same nature as that raised by the hon. Member's Amendment, I think it would be useful if the right hon. Gentleman could explain why that Section is to be altered. When I saw the Amendment on the Order Paper I wondered at what point it would be suggested that the man concerned should be brought home. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has made that point clear. The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that, under the Army Act, if the term of sentence exceeds 12 months, the soldier must be transferred as soon as practicable to a prison in the United Kingdom. That means that there is a 12 months' limit. In what respect are the Government altering that Section? Is this only a minor Amendment? It would be very useful if the right hon. Gentleman explained what is the particular point. It may be necessary to wait until we come to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" before we can deal with it.

I think it would probably meet the convenience of the Committee if we dealt with it now. Obviously, the explanation of the Government's attitude will depend upon the alteration which is proposed in the Army Act, and it is desirable that the point should be put now, on the understanding that it is not debated at a later stage.

I am very much obliged to you, Captain Bourne, for your ruling. We may get this matter perfectly straight now, so that we may know exactly where we are. The change which we are making in the Army Act, by Clause 4 of the Bill, is twofold in character. In the first place, it will enable us to send the soldier sentenced to a term exceeding 12 months in the Dominions or in a foreign country, to the United Kingdom, as soon as practicable, which is exactly what hon. Members desire. The present intention of the Army Act is not quite clear. In point of fact—I think I am giving no secret away—there has been a little doubt about the exact interpretation of the Section. In the past we have sent soldiers home to this country to serve long sentences, but there has been just a little doubt as to whether we have been doing it in accordance with the law. The proposed Amendment of the Act will make it perfectly clear that we can do it. It is the desire of the hon. Members who put down the Amendment under discussion that that should be done, that soldiers should be sent here if their sentence is a long one. That obviously is for the soldier's benefit.

The proposed amendment of the Act carries a great deal farther than Cyprus or Palestine. The Act, if amended as suggested by the Government, will mean that a British soldier may have to serve his sentence in any country in the world, if he is sentenced in a foreign country. There is no limitation as to mandated territory, and, if a British soldier is serving in any part of the world, he may be compelled, if the amendment proposed in the Bill be accepted by the Committee, to serve a sentence, for any offence which he may commit, in a foreign country. Take, for instance, a man who was in the—

This is for short sentences only. Sentences of 12 months and over are covered by the proviso to Section 64 in the Army Act.

In the Act, as I read it, I see no provision which allows a British soldier to be imprisoned in a foreign country. This amendment would and does make that provision. The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable explanation that it is for places like Palestine. I was citing a case such as that of the men who were in the British Army in the Saar, which is a foreign country. One of those men commits a serious offence, and he is convicted there; under the Amendment proposed in the Bill he may be imprisoned in a Saar prison or a German, French or Belgian prison. The terms of the clause are very wide. I see nothing in the Act which gave that power before.

I am very sorry that the Hon. Member comes to the House and puts down an amendment without reading the Act. He says that he finds nothing in the existing Act which gives power to make a soldier serve a sentence in a foreign country if the sentence has been imposed in a foreign country. May I direct the hon. Member's attention to Section 64 (3), which is as follows:

"A military prisoner or soldier under sentence of detention who was sentenced in a foreign country shall undergo his sentence either in that foreign country, or in any foreign country."

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has really met the point. The Clause which we are discussing in the Bill reads:

"A military prisoner or soldier under sentence of detention shall… if he was sentenced in a foreign country, undergo his sentence either in that country or in any other foreign country… or in the United Kingdom, or in such other place as may be prescribed."

If the right hon. Gentleman will read the two provisions together he will see that they state that, unless the soldier can be transferred from the foreign country in which he may be serving and in which he committed his crime, to another foreign country, he will have to finish his sentence in that country. The Clause in the Bill needs re-drafting, because it is not in the same terms as that which is in the Act.

The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has asked that specific mention should be made of any particular country—Egypt, for instance—which may be contemplated; but surely, if a soldier is sentenced in a particular country with which this country may have an alliance, it is desirable—

This is not a case in which a soldier is sentenced in a foreign country in a time of war; it is a case in which he may be sentenced in a Dominion or Colony, and, under this amendment of the Army Act, although he may be sentenced, say, in Canada or India or a British Colony, there is power to make him serve his sentence in a foreign country.

He may have to serve his sentence in a foreign country, but surely it is not desirable to mention a particular country—say Egypt—in any legislation. Similar cases may occur in which soldiers may be sentenced in another foreign country, and it might be desirable that the sentence should be served, say, in Russia, or any other place, according to the course of events. I cannot see that any hardship is involved. It is simply a question of the desirability of it being allowed, and I think the intention is perfectly clear.

I do not intend to press this Amendment, for I am not altogether satisfied with its wording. It is, however, no use the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite saying that it is desirable to do this or that. In these matters of soldiers' sentences it is much more desirable to be specific than in the ease of the civilian population, because, while in the case of the civilian population the matter can always be adjusted through a Member of Parliament or some other person, in the case of a soldier it is much harder to adjust anything that may appear to be wrong. We should have liked the Minister to make much more clear in the Act itself the definitions which he applied in his speech, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, before the Bill is introduced again 12 months hence, to try to make the Act clearer according to the conception he has stated. As I have said, I do not wish to press the Amendment, but will ask the Committee's permission to withdraw it.

I do not want to reopen this question, but would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible, before the Act is brought into force, to add words specifying that the place in which the sentence is to be served shall be a place which is under the control of a British officer, or whatever may be the proper form. The provision is very wide at present. I agree that we do not want to put Egypt in, but as it stands it is left very wide, and the sentence might have to be served in places where there is absolutely no control by anyone connected with this country. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter again between now and Report.

I am afraid I cannot make any promise on that question at this moment, but it is very unlikely that the difficulty which the hon. Member foresees will take place. As the Committee know, we have to get this Bill through, and cannot very well put down amendments now; but I will promise that the matter shall be considered before the Bill is introduced next year, and, if there is found to be any difficulty, and if it is possible then to put in an amendment such as the hon. Member suggests, it will be done. I cannot, however, promise to amend the Bill to-day.

I cannot accept for a moment the position that the House of Commons is not allowed to make amendments because the Government are in a hurry. They have the control of Government business, and should give the House the necessary time. Surely the House is not to be denied the right to take a Bill or reject it because the Government are in a hurry.

There is not so much hurry as to prevent full discussion, and there has been already, and will be, full discussion of this Bill to-day. We are not in any way attempting to curb discussion. We want a full discussion on the Bill, and we want to get it through on its merits.

Are we to be met in each case with the fact that the Bill has to be got through quickly and without any consideration? Cannot the matter be dealt with in another place? I know the difficulties of the Report stage, and of throwing the matter open to discussion again, but I think the right hon. Gentleman might try to see if it cannot be done in another place.

Before I call upon the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) to move the Clause which stands in his name, I would point out that the Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) seems to me to cover the same point, and I would suggest that we take the discussion of these two Clauses together, the hon. Members having the right to divide on them separately should they wish to do so.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I am glad, Captain Bourne, that you have suggested that this Clause and the one standing in my name should be discussed together. We were accused of shirking the issue on the last occasion and asked why we did not bring something definite before the Committee to deal with the question. The proposition contained in the Clause of my hon. Friend has been put before the Committee many times and the same argument has been made as that which has been advanced by my hon. Friend that boys who enlist between the ages of 17 and 18 ought to have the opportunity of being released from the Army if an appeal is made by parents or guardians. We have never been able to prevail upon the Government to recognise the claim, although they have told us in debate that many boys have been released when representations have been made. Last year the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who was then at the War Office told us that we were always playing the same tune, that there was really nothing in it, that the War Office were most benevolent, and that in 99 cases out of 100 such boys were released. It is rather curious that yesterday I received a letter from one of my constituents—it is dated 27th March—bearing on the particular case that we are bringing forward this morning.

"I am writing to ask you whether you can do anything for us with regard to getting the discharge of our son from the Army. The Minister "—

"wrote in the first place and they sent a form to fill up, to apply on compassionate grounds which I did, and the minister signed it, and I also got written a guarantee of employment. I wrote a letter stating our case and also enclosed his birth certificate. He is not 18 until next November, but they refused to grant his discharge. I still think we can claim him out on account of his age, never mind about compassionate grounds, and I think we have a good case on that. He is the eldest boy of our family of eight. We have two daughters older. He enlisted last August against our wishes and got his papers signed as 18 by someone else."

"His mother had a damaged heart before he went, and the shock of him going and being away from home so young is telling on her so much that I am obliged to apply for his discharge for her sake. He realises his mistake and would be glad to come home for his mother's sake if we can get him discharged. So will you do what you can for us as soon as possible? I am enclosing reply I have had from them, so you will see what regiment he is in, and I enclose stamped addressed envelope reply. Hoping to hear from you soon."

"With reference to your letter regarding the discharge of your son "—

"I have to inform you that after careful inquiry and full consideration of the case, the Brigade Commander and the Commanding Officer are of opinion that there is no case for discharge on compassionate grounds. Birth certificate is returned herewith."

"Every person authorised to enlist recruits in the regular forces shall give to every person offering to enlist a notice in the form for the time being authorised by the Army Council, stating the general requirements of attestation and the general conditions of the contract to be entered into by the recruit, and directing such person to appear before a justice of the peace either forthwith or at the time and place therein mentioned."

"In 99 cases out of 100 a boy who wants to join the Army at 17, and takes risk in doing so, is far more likely to get enjoyment out of Army life than from the scanty means of livelihood open in many parts of England to young men of the working classes. In 99 cases out of a 100 there is no better life than Army life. In a very large percentage of cases the alternative in a poverty-stricken family at home offers utterly inferior amenities and pleasures. Instead of travel, adventure, health, happiness, open air life and exercise, it means, in many cases, a life spent in and out of employment, a life where a man only casually and precariously makes any contribution to the home, and a life in many cases devoid of brightness."—[OFFTCIAL REPORT, 11th April, 1934; col. 332, Vol. 288.]

It is very pleasant to hear hon. Members opposite eulogising the Army and the life that the average solidier lives, but I must ask the Committee to reject any overtures in favour of the adoption of the Clause, because the Clause is not necessary. There are already sufficient provisions and powers in the hands of the authorities to deal with such cases as have been quoted by the two hon. Members. The whole question is whether a boy is 18 or 17 and whether he has told the truth. I come from a heavy industrial area where many young boys who are unemployed and of perhaps not very comfortable home circumstances attempt to enrol in the Forces. They are subjected to every test such as a youth of over 18 would go through and if they are physically fit and pass every other qualification demanded of them they enter the Services.

The Bill is called the Army Annual Bill, and if I may say without offence to hon. Members opposite, their speeches are becoming annual speeches as well. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) hoped that they would have a satisfactory speech from the Financial Secretary on this occasion. I can assure him that they are going to hear a very satisfactory speech, the same kind of speech that was delivered 12 months ago. If I were to give a short reply to the debate it would be to refer hon. Members to the reply which was given 12 months ago to a similar question, but I am rather doubtful whether hon. Members would consider that a courteous way of replying to the debate. Therefore, if they are not disposed to be satisfied with that kind of short answer, I am compelled to repeat the case which was put against the arguments made 12 months ago. There are two classes of soldiers who enlist under 18 years of age. There are those who enlist as boys for training as tradesmen and buglers and drummers. They are not enlisted without the consent of their parents or guardians being first obtained, and this consent is actually obtained in writing. I have in my hand Army Form B.5110, in which the parents are compelled to write the name of the boy on the top of the form, and then are required to answer the questions:

"Do you consent to the enlistment of the above young boy in His Majesty's Army?

Do you understand that he will be enlisted to fill a vacancy for a boy in the… regiment stationed at.…"

Does that apply to all boys under 18 years of age?

These are boys who are enlisted in the special class, enlisted deliberately as boys, to be trained for some trade in the Army or as buglers or drummers. There is absolutely no doubt about the consent of the parents or guardians being obtained in these cases. If there is a doubt it would simply be that the recruiting authorities might imagine that the signatories are the real parents or guardians but possibly some months later the real parents may turn up and prove that they are in fact the parents or the guardians of the youth. In those cases there is absolutely no doubt about the boy being released. So far as the case of boys is concerned, therefore, I think we may be quite happy. The other class of recruit referred to in this Clause is the one who enlists as 18 or over and mis-states his age. It is that class with which the Committee is more concerned. Let me state what is the procedure. I will quote from the "Regulations for Recruiting for the Regular Army." This is the 1934 edition, and here are the regulations which are in possession of every recruiting officer. Paragraph 73 states this:

"Where there is the slightest suspicion that the recruit is under the age limit full inquiries will be made before final approval.

All inquiries relating to age or character should be made with the utmost promptitude to prevent a recruit being lost to the Service. He may be attested, but not finally approved, pending the result of such inquiries. If the result of the inquiries is unsatisfactory the recruit, if attested, will be at once discharged."

"You are hereby warned that if after enlistment it is found that you have given a wilfully false answer to any of the following eight questions, you will be liable to a punishment of two years' imprisonment with hard labour."

"An enlistment is a valid contract although entered into by a person under 21 who by the ordinary rules of law cannot as a general rule contract any engagement."

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether those were cases of boys under 18? He mentioned under 21, but I should like to know whether those are cases under 18.

Under 21 would include under 18. Then the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in the early part of his speech, quoted a case of hardship. I think he knows, and many other Members realise, that if a case of hardship such as that is given to me, I always have the fullest inquiry made into it, and if he will hand me that particular case, I will promise to have it thoroughly looked into. Without exception I get a report, and without exception I consider the reports carefully, and I know that I have given some measure of satisfaction to Members of the House whenever they have a good case. I promise to apply the same consideration to this case as to any others.

I only got the letter last night. Had I got it earlier, I would have handed it to the right hon. Gentleman.

I am not complaining of the hon. Gentleman's action, but if he will be good enough to let me have the case, I will take it as a privilege to look into it. Then the hon. Member for Leigh is very anxious that a birth certificate should be produced in every case. I am told that this was tried about 25 years ago, and was a failure then. For the same reason, probably, it would be a failure now, because most of the intending recruits could not furnish these certificates. To demand the production of birth certificates would clearly be objectionable for many reasons, each of which, I believe, would be conclusive in itself. First of all, the production of a birth certificate would involve trouble and delay and very frequently expense, especially if a copy of the birth certificate had to be purchased. Each of those troubles would put off intending recruits. If the hon. Member's desire is to reduce the number of recruits, by all means have the birth certificate.

With regard to the production of a birth certificate, I wonder if the same objections would apply in ordinary civil life. There are a number of cases in which birth certificates have to be produced in order to get occupation, and do things of various descriptions, but no one would think of using the arguments that have been used this morning; in fact, such arguments have always been held to be entirely groundless. The right hon. Member said that 25 years ago it was in operation, and that it was a failure. I venture to say that if there were any substance in that argument 25 years ago, there is none to-day. The system of registration during the last generation has been so efficient that the difficulty of getting a birth certificate is almost nonexistent. Then the right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of expense. What really is the expense connected with getting a birth certificate? Little or none. Then he said that if our idea is to stop recruiting, by all means let us have a birth certificate. The contrary argument to that is: "In order to stimulate recruiting, let us get them into the Army whether they can produce a birth certificate or not, or are 18 or not. A boy should be 18 years of age before joining the Army, but in order to get him there, we will take him as long as he is an efficient soldier."

The hon. Member is wrong when he says that the Army is going to be the judge, because even on compassionate grounds, if applications are made, I believe it is the practice of the authorities to make very stringent inquiries of the boy himself as to his inclination or desire to remain in the Army or go back.

But they do not say to the boy, "Whatever you say will decide the issue." He is allowed to state his opinion, but the Army decides what the issue shall be.

And in certain cases before a boy can get unemployment benefit, if there is any doubt, he has to produce his birth certificate.

It applies almost generally in civil life but it does not apply to the Army. The Army dispense with this requirement in order to get recruits. Apparently it does not matter whether they are 16 or 18 or 20 as long as they are suitable as recruits and the Army itself is to decide whether their enlistment is legal or illegal. I think the system is most unfair. The excuses which have been put up by the right hon. Gentleman do not meet the case and I wish that we could defeat the Government on this question.

The next Amendment that I select is the proposed new Clause.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 81.)

Are you not calling the proposed new Clause—" Appointment of soldiers' committees to advise soldiers in presenting their wrongs?"

I have given careful consideration to that proposed new Clause, and I have looked up the precedents as to the questions that are permissable in the discussions on the Army Annual Bill, and I have come to the conclusion that this is really a matter of administration which should be raised on the Estimates.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I want to oppose this proposed new Clause for the very reasons that have been submitted by the hon. Member who has moved it. Perhaps there is an analogy that might be drawn. There are still such things in this country as apprenticeships. If a son of mine were apprenticed to a given trade at a certain premium, it would according to the hon. Member be only right if after a certain period, say of 12 months, the son did not like his surroundings, that I should be able to claim that the penalty for breaking the contract between the tutor and the apprentice should be reduced. I hope that the hon. Member will not think I am malicious, but I believe that there is an ulterior motive behind this new Clause, and I can thoroughly understand it. The hon. Member really gave the game away when we were discussing the measure known as the Sedition Act. Communists or any person who attempts to seduce the ordinary men of the Services from his allegiance to the Crown have had their activities curbed by that Act. This new Clause would lead to the possibility of a person enrolling in His Majesty's Services under the guise of a genuine soldier for the specific purpose of using his 12 months to distribute or disseminate propaganda.

I had not thought of that. It is certainly an idea worth considering.

That is the reason why I claim the Clause should not be accepted. It would lead to that possibility. The party, anxious that this antagonistic propaganda should be disseminated, but being in low funds and not having a sufficient membership to guarantee a banking account, would be much better able to get together £2 as the result of a public meeting than they would be able to scrape together £20. Therefore the hon. Member, with all due respect to him, is to be respected in so far as he is conscientiously inclined in these directions in finding this very novel way of introducing a dangerous thing. I do not impute the motive to him, but he has admitted that he sees the possibility of it. After all, if a recruit enlists in the Services, as the right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago, the State attempts not only to make the best use of his services but to bring out the best qualities in the man himself. Not only do they teach him a trade, but they give him facilities for scientific knowledge which in ordinary civil life he would never be able to acquire. It is only fair to say that after three months those in charge of that man have an opportunity of knowing whether or not he is likely to be a suitable recruit for a specific type of service. It is unfair after the initial plans have been laid down and expenditure incurred that this person should by his own will by paying a paltry £2 be able to leave the Service and destroy all the ideals of himself on the one hand and the expenditure which has been laid down in respect of him on the other. I believe that it would considerably hold up the question of enlistment and the responsibility of recruits to ridicule, and, in so far as the British Army is concerned, I hope that nothing will ever be introduced into the regulations to make that possible.

I know nothing about these ulterior motives.

Hear, hear.

I say that I know nothing about these ulterior motives—I am not going further than that—but I should never suspect the hon. Members of doing anything that they were not prepared to come into the open about. Therefore, I do not want to say anything about any suggestion of ulterior motives, but to deal with the proposed new Clause on its merits. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said that three months was much too short a period for a soldier to make up his mind whether or not he would be happy in remaining in the Army. The hon. Member would be one of the first to consider the interests of the State. He believes in State control and would therefore never overlook the interest of the State even though he would take into consideration the interest of the individual soldier. Considering the interests of the State, he must take into account the cost of the training of these young soldiers, as has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike).

A Government does its best to get a Bill through as easily and quickly as possible, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not spare time for a few lessons to his supporters, not that one minds what they say. I once had a foreman beside me who was always looking for something that was wrong, and it was said that he had a mind like a sewer. I can assure the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) on the question of distributing literature to seduce soldiers that if somebody wanted to do that the question of £2 or £20 would not stand in his way. If a Power wanted to do that sort of thing a few miserable pounds would not stand in its way. I ask the Committee not to take the hon. Member seriously. We have already dismissed him on the subject of unemployment insurance, and I trust that on Army matters his fate will be the same. I turn to more weighty considerations. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office always seeks out the, weakness in a person's case and plays on that. It is good debating, and I take no exception to it. He bases all his case practically on the 12 months and says little or nothing about the £20 or £2. If the right hon. Gentleman will concede us the £2, we will not press for the 12 months. When we put in the claim for the 12 months we knew it had certain weaknesses which do not pertain to the £2. The right hon. Gentleman said that men would seek to leave the Army on the eve of a regiment going abroad. It is not the common practice to send abroad men in their first year or two years of service, though it is sometimes done.

I am inclined to support this Amendment, which I regard as a very reasonable one. The sum of £20 is absurdly high. I think the Minister has made his calculations on an actuarial basis in suggesting that because the cost of training a recruit is so high the State ought to be reimbursed as far as possible if a man leaves the Army at the end of three months. There is another point of view. While assessing the expenditure of the State on the training of these young men the Minister must not forget that the men render a great deal of service while in the Army. It is not all give on one side and take on the other. Speaking with five years' experience as a soldier, I maintain that a

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that there should be no class distinction in the regulations which govern the admission of officers or men into local government bodies. The first part of the Section which the hon. Member has quoted is restrictive; it says that officers may not take part in the more urban forms of local government, to put it shortly; and the hon. Member, in his desire that soldiers should be on the same footing, seeks to make that restriction applicable also to soldiers. I am in entire agreement with that. But the proviso, as the law stands, enables officers to sit on county councils, and the Amendment seeks to make the same conditions applicable to soldiers also. While I am in entire agreement with the restrictive power of the Section, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he could not consider, before the next Army Annual Bill is brought to the House of Commons, inserting an Amendment in the Bill which would have the effect of prohibiting officers and also soldiers from sitting on county councils.

I desire to support the proposed new Clause, because I cannot see that this distinction between officers and men is justified. After all, the common purpose of both is to fight for their King and country, and both give the best of their lives in that service; and if any privilege like that of serving on a county council is going to be given to the one section, it ought to be to the other. I do not see why there should be any distinction at all. It might have been justified in the early days, because, as is well known, from the point of view of education the common soldier was not the equal of the officer; but we have gone beyond that now. The common soldier to-day is, generally speaking, fairly well educated—he has to be—and, therefore, can take part in county council or other local government work equally with an officer, and in my opinion there is no ground which can justify the giving of this privilege to the one and not to the other. I think we are indebted to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for bringing this matter forward and drawing the attention of the House to the position at the present time. It may be that the Financial Secretary may say that the time has come when the common soldier is entitled to the same rights and privileges as the officer, and in that case my speaking for the Clause will have been unnecessary.

I desire to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) in asking the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will consider at some early future date the deletion of the proviso to Section 146 of the Army Act, which now enables an officer to sit on a county council. I notice that this Section dates from the days of Queen Victoria, and in those days county councils, when they were set up, were largely non-political. To-day they are becoming increasingly political, and the elections in various parts of the country are being fought more and more on political lines. In places like London, Glasgow and Durham the county council elections are now being fought on political lines, and I think it is time that officers should conform to the general rule of keeping out of politics, and should not be allowed to stand for a county council.

The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is wondering what excuse will be made to justify the argument that has been brought to bear on this matter so frequently in the House. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) paid me the compliment of an ingenuity which I must share with some of my predecessors—

Certainly; we do not wish to give credit to one more than another.

I know, however, that the hon. Member realises that if any mistake is made the responsibility will be mine, and, therefore, I think it is only fair that some of the credit also should rest with me. The hon. Member was wondering whether I could produce an ingenious reason to defend the present position. I am very disappointed indeed that I am unable on this occasion to produce that ingenious reason which he, I am sure, expected would be forthcoming. The hon. Member for Gorbals said that there should be no distinction between the private and officer in connection with county council elections. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) suggested that they were in agreement, at any rate with the restrictive portion of the new Clause but they propose to disqualify an officer from being elected or becoming a member of the county council in the same way as a soldier at the present time is disqualified. I think that there is a great deal to be said for their proposal.

I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very great frankness. If it had been the Minister of any other department standing at that box, I would have apologised for the shortness of notice we had given, but we expect the War Office to be always on the qui vive. One of our Scottish regiments has this motto, "Aye, ready" and we could have hoped that the War Office responsible for directing the activities of that regiment in the field would have had a similar motto. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if he were called upon to direct this force he would have to get out his mobilisation papers pretty quick and make decisions in shorter time than he is called upon here to do. Therefore, we do not have to apologise to him for giving him the best part of 24 hours' notice.

He has to sleep.

I am sorry to hear that; it is different from the Navy. The Lord of the Treasury says that he has to sleep. I do not know why.

I do not think that sleep has very much to do with it. If I had sat up the whole of last night it would not have helped me in this particular instance, because the Order Paper was not delivered to me at my house in London until 10 o'clock this morning, and I had to be sitting on this Bench at 11 o'clock in order to hear the speeches of hon. Members.

I would just pass on this tip from the Independent Labour Party to the War Office, and I hope that they will not be too haughty to take advice from such a quarter. When we are interested in something which is to come on on the next day we do not wait for the Order Paper. We go to the Table and enter into friendly conversation with the officials sitting there who are always ready to give Members of this House, and even Ministers, all the information that is necessary in order to carry on their legitimate business. Therefore, the Army has been a little lax in not finding out last night what its job was for to-day.

Let the hon. Gentleman be quite fair. I am very glad to learn of the friendly relations between the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the gentlemen who sit at the Table—I think that that is a very good thing indeed—but I also imagine that there should be friendly relationship between the hon. Member for Bridgeton and the official who sits on this Bench, namely, the Financial Secretary to the War Office. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton had been good enough to acquaint me personally that he had handed in this Clause at the Table and had given me notice of his proposed amendments and thus given me an opportunity of considering them overnight, I should have had my 12 hours' consideration and, no doubt, then would have had a more satisfactory reply to give to the hon. Member. So I really think he must accept a little responsibility for having been a little less friendly with me than I had anticipated. This is not the only amendment in respect of which I have a complaint. Seven new Amendments were put down, and I had several new proposals to consider between 10 and 11 o'clock.

I certainly at once apologise on behalf of myself and colleagues for any apparent act of discourtesy. The one thing we always try to be is a model of courtesy to the whole House, but the right hon. Member will recognise the limitation of our party staff and resources. At the time when we would normally have been telling him about this Clause and explaining precisely what he should be doing to-day, we were engaged in earnest conversation with another Government department over another matter which was also important, but on another occasion we will try to give him the additional time he apparently requires. We wish to divide the House on this new Clause, for this reason. There are two elements involved in the approach to this matter. One is that of putting the soldier on to the same level as the officer, and on that side we have the support of two hon. Members who are normally supporters of the Government. Their object is to put them on a level which is more restrictive than that which presently obtains, and to reduce the right of an officer to participate in the public and civil rights of the nation. That is where they are only agreeing with us in putting the officer on the same level as the soldier. In other words, they want to bring the officer down to the lower citizenship level at which the private is to-day.

In regard to the lack of notice given to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, I should like to absolve my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) of any responsibility. Whatever blame there may be in regard to the matter rests with me. I was engaged with the Minister of Labour on a certain matter, otherwise the Financial Secretary would have received earlier notice.

It is reasonable that the Financial Secretary should have an opportunity of considering the matter raised by the new Clause. In the meantime, would he be willing to effect a compromise between what is asked in the new Clause and the present position? The word "soldier" obviously means a private soldier, and the suggestion is that the soldier should be given the opportunity to have democratic representation

This new Clause raises more or less, but in a different aspect, the same point that was raised on the last Amendment. The object of our Amendments is to bring about equality between the officer and the serving soldier and to ensure that there shall be no discrimination in the future. In our last Amendment we sought to enable the private soldier to serve on a council with equal status with the officer. We propose that there shall be no discrimination in punishments as between a private soldier and an officer. That is the object of the new Clause. As it is drafted it may not make good reading, but that is our proposal. We want to get this matter decided on the broad principle rather than on technicalities, and the broad principle raised here is that as far as officers and men are concerned there should be no differentiation as regards punishments.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that he should move his new Clause in a slightly different form:

"In section 44 of the Army Act (which relates to scales of punishment by courts-martial) all words after 'officers' in line 4, to the end of' (gg) stoppages,' in line 1.8, shall be deleted and the word 'and' inserted in place thereof."

Thank you, I will move it in that form.

On the last occasion I thought that I had been very generous to hon. Members below the gangway, but their appreciation has not given me too much encouragement as to my future generosity. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) says that the new clause may not make good reading. That is quite true. I agree with his remarks on that point, because if it were carried it would require an amendment to 18 other sections of the Army Act where cashiering is mentioned. In order to tidy up the Army Act we should have to deal with 18 other sections, but I do not think we need trouble much about that to-day in view of the fact that the hon. Member is likely to be defeated in the division lobby. He says that there should be no difference in the punishment of officers and men. I do not agree with him; for a reason which perhaps he does not expect. I think that an officer's punishment for the same offence should be a great deal more severe than that of the soldier. His responsibilities are greater. He ought to set a good example to his men; and in my submission he should be dealt with more severely than the private soldier. The hon. Member's argument is that at the present time there is an unfair differentiation against the soldier in favour of the officer. That is made plain when the hon. Member for Gorbals says that there should be no difference in the punishment of officers and men, implying that there is a differentiation in favour of officers and against the men. That is not true.

And putting in discharged with ignominy.

There is this difference between being discharged with ignominy and being cashiered. In the case of a soldier he is under contract to serve for a certain period of time, and when he is discharged he is free to do exactly what he likes, he may be able to join up again. But the officer, on the other hand, serves during His Majesty's pleasure. It is a life job. There is that distinction. Although the punishment is practically the same, there is the distinction that they are on different forms of service altogether. If I thought that an officer with very great responsibilities, in which he has to set a very high example to his men, was getting off more lightly than a soldier for committing the same offence I would not defend the present law. But that is not so. If we accepted this Amendment we would in effect reduce the punishment that could be given to an officer. The Amendment, for example, would make it impossible to reduce the officer in rank or seniority, or to reprimand him. These lists of punishments have been in operation for more years than any one of this House can remember. They have worked quite satisfactorily over that long period of time. I ask the Committee to reject the new Clause and to let us continue on the sound lines which have worked perfectly smoothly almost from the day when the Army was first formed.

I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to make clear a few words that he spoke. He pointed out that an officer would be Gazetted if cashiered, but he also said that a private soldier dismissed with ignominy is free to rejoin the Army if he cares. Surely one of the most distressing punishments of a private soldier who is in a sense cashiered and turned out of the Army with ignominy is that that fact is recorded on his discharge papers.

We had a long discussion this morning about the production of birth certificates. They are not absolutely essential. It is possible for a man to rejoin the Army under an assumed name, and many of them do.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not recommend that practice. One of the most distressing punishments of a private soldier who has been dismissed from the Army, sometimes not with ignominy but for becoming intoxicated—I have had such cases brought to my notice—is that he has to carry his discharge book about with him, and at the present time, under the system of registration connected with National Health Insurance, wherever that man goes to apply for a situation he is compelled to disclose the fact that he was a member of the Army at some time, and his discharge book is produced to his prospective employer. That in itself is a punishment much harsher than the fact that the cashiered officer would be Gazetted, because that would be known only to people who read that sort of paper. It is certainly not a form of publicity that appears in every daily newsaper read by the multitude. I admit it is something that is very ignominious for the officer in his own circle and rank of society, and we should not look lightly on that. Nor should we look lightly on the fact that a private soldier, when turned out of the Army with ignominy, carries his discharge book about with him for the rest of his life, and that works very hardly with him.

I do not know that we are prepared to accept the general doctrine outlined by the Financial Secretary, that differentiation of sentence should bear more harshly on the officer than on the man. I know the theory. It is a common thing, to whom much is given much is required, and so on, that the more responsible the position of a man the greater the obligation on him to act rightly, and the greater the penalty should be. I am not accepting that doctrine in general at all. But we are not caring, in this instance, whether our Amendment eases or increases penalties for officers. The principle we are putting forward is that there should be exactly the same treatment for officers and men. While theoretically it may be true that Army and Navy authorities regard the offence of an officer as much more severe than the same offence committed by a private soldier, in practice we know that the authorities are prepared to temper the wind very much for the senior officers. The Financial Secretary must not shake his head. We have had the most flagrant case in the last week or two, when an officer of the Navy, sentenced by court martial, has had the sentence completely wiped out and overturned by the superior authorities.

We had better leave the Navy alone in this debate. It does not arise on this Bill.

I was merely making what I thought was a legitimate point. The Financial Secretary tells me that the War Office hold the view that the commissioned officer should be treated more severely than the private soldier. That may be sound theory, though I am not accepting it. We know that in practice an officer and a gentleman has a certain amount of consideration held out to him by higher authorities—consideration that would not be held out to the private soldier for the same offence.

In the analogous case that the hon. Member mentioned the fact was that the Admiral suffered.

No; the effect of the change, I understand, is that there has been no suffering in the end, and that any suffering that had been imposed was withdrawn. If a private soldier got into similar trouble before a court martial he

Are you not calling our last Clause on the Order Paper which provides that a general court-martial where a private soldier is being tried shall be composed of private soldiers with a certain length of service?

The hon. Member's Clause is so incomplete, that I am unable to call upon him to move it. It is so incomplete that it is out of order. It would require considerable amendment to make it fit in with the Act.