Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Perhaps it will curtail GI truncate, if that be the appropriate word, our discussion on this Clause, if I observe that Subsection (1) very clearly expresses the constitutional position. One of my hon. and gallant Friends has one or two important questions to ask concerning certain operational matters, but I think that it will make it easier to get the Clause through in reasonable time if I say that, so far as we are concerned, we are satisfied with the constitutional position. We could not be anything less, as it is expressed in the first Subsection, but I will take advantage of the opportunity to say that it raises a rather interesting point.

It will be easier, through the medium of Questions and speeches in the House to question Ministers on the subject of the army than it is today. Questions in respect of the British Army in India are answered by the India Office. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends find the subject of the India Office one for a great joke. The result of that arrangement has sometimes been that we have been unable in past years to get the information which we required. Frankly, I think a much more satisfactory position will arise in future, when the Secretary of State will be constitutionally responsible for the conduct of British troops in India, and any question may be addressed to him as to their use on the smallest as well as on the most important matters. There can be no question of a double constitutional allegiance —and I am glad to have the assent of the Prime Minister to this—and the Government of India cannot use British troops in any circumstances without the permission of the Government of this country, which is answerable to this House for such use. That we regard as a very satisfactory position.

I want to refer the Committee back to a point I raised on Second Reading, when I asked the Under-Secretary under whose operational command British troops in India would be between 15th August and the time when they left India, because an interim period will arise. In reply, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said they would be under British command, and he went on to say that, for administrative purposes, they would be under the Commander-in-Chief. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to send out a special British commander, or whether they will be under the operational command of the present Commander-in-Chief who will become Supreme Commander? I would like to know which of the two courses the Government are adopting.

There are a number of small matters which arise under the army Act, and with which I hope we shall be able to deal on the Schedule, but there is one other matter which cannot be dealt with there to which I would refer. When British forces are leaving India, and when British personnel serving with the Indian Army are in India, they are under the Army Act for discipline and other matters. Who is the Commander-in-Chief, within the terms of the Army Act, for a soldier in Pakistan and a soldier in India? Is he the same man, who will be Commanderin-Chief of the Pakistan forces or the Indian forces, and who, after all, is responsible entirely, not to His Majesty's Government, but to another Dominion Government, or is there to be a special disciplinary Commander-in-Chief, who may "vet" court-martial proceedings and carry out certain other duties which are laid upon the Commander-in-Chief under the Army Act? I would have liked to raise certain matters on Imperial defence, but I rather agree, having heard what my right hon. Friend said, that perhaps it would be better not to talk about them now.

I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply, a question which I think is consequential upon the Prime Minister's remarks about officers at present in the Indian Army who continue to serve in the Armies of India or Pakistan, which, of course, is desirable. I understand that, at the moment, the British officer of the regular Army and Air Force is not allowed to resign his commission if he wishes to do so. Those officers now in the Indian Army who are under 40 years of age have two courses open to them; one is to transfer to the British Army, and the other is to serve in the Armies of Pakistan or India. It seems to me to be only reasonable that those who desire not to transfer to the British Army should have the right to retire if they so wish, without being forcibly transferred to the British Army.

The other question is one, I believe, of very great operational importance—the operational movement of troops in India. I hope we are not going to have British troops deployed in putting down internal disorders on orders from Indian Ministers. This is my personal view, and one which may not be shared by other hon. Members on these benches. I want to see British troops concentrated at the ports at once. Finally, I would like to know what is going to happen to the middle-aged officers, those between 40 and 50 years of age? I understand that the more elderly officers are being retired on retired pay. I do not think that we have had any announcement from the Government about the middle-aged categories. I presume that the passing of this Act will affect their future.

I do not think that this Clause ought to be passed by the Committee without a specific assurance from the Government on the lines asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson). I suppose it will be generally agreed that at no time in the history of our connection with India has it been more essential than it will be during the transition period for absolute impartiality to be shown between Hindus and Muslims. Therefore, the assurance which I think the Government could give with great advantage should be that, in no circumstances, during that time, while the presence of British troops in India is being brought to an end, will a situation be allowed to arise in which they can be employed in any way on behalf of one side against the other. I think, if that happened, it would be a most disastrous event politically in India, and, equally importantly, I think it would have a very bad effect on public opinion in this country, which would not tolerate such a thing happening, with its resultant loss of life or injury.

I think I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) that there is not the slightest intention on the part of His Majesty's Government of permitting British troops to be used, following the appointed day, on the side of one Dominion, or of one party to a dispute in India against the other party.

What my hon. and gallant Friend asked for, and what we on this side ask for is that, in no circumstances, shall British troops, after the appointed day, be used for purposes of putting down internal disorder. We want to go much further than the intention; we want an undertaking given to the Committee that in such circumstances British troops will not be used.

10.15 p.m.

The assurance has already been given, and I would repeat it. To do otherwise would be quite inconsistent with the stated intentions of His Majesty's Government. A number of other points were raised. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe asked whether the Commander-in-Chief would have any responsibility for law and order. The Prime Minister, in the Second Reading Debate, said that the Commander-in-Chief will have no responsibility for law and order. The hon. and gallant Member also asked for an assurance that there would be no question of officers with more than 20 years' service being required to stay on and serve either of the Dominion Governments.

I was making the point that, presumably, there will now be some such requirement. The point which I may not have made quite clear was that if these officers under 40 years of age are required to serve in India, and transfer at a later date to the British Army, presumably their career in the British Army may suffer because their colleagues who may have transferred earlier will have been in the British Army longer. For that reason, I suggest for the consideration of the Government that it may be a good thing to have the condition that any Indian Army officers who continue to serve under the Government of India or Pakistan should, when they finish their service, be allowed to retire and go into what we call "Civvy street" if they wish to do so.

I could not give any assurance on that point, but I would be glad to have the suggestion examined. I would emphasise that, of course, there is no question of compelling any British officer to serve with Indian Forces. It may be that if an officer is serving with a British formation he will have to go wherever that formation is sent, but there is no question of compelling a British officer to serve with the Indian Forces.

The hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) asked a question with regard to the statement which I made during the Second Reading Debate concerning the command of the British Forces now in India. The position is this, and I am sorry if I have slightly misled hon. Members. A British commander has been appointed to command the British Forces in India. There is to be a Commander-in-Chief of the Forces of Pakistan and of the Forces of India. Over those two Commanders-in-Chief there will be a Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and he will have operational control of, and administrative responsibility for, the British Forces under a British general. He, in turn, as far as the British Forces in India are concerned, will be directly responsible to the Chiefs of Staff in London.

The hon. and gallant Member asked a question about personnel who at this moment are attached to Indian establishments. Their position is that a certain number of them—mostly technical personnel, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows—will be invited to volunteer to serve on attachment to Indian establishments, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is expressly provided in Clause 11 (2, b) that nothing in any enactment in force at the date of the passing of this Act shall render him subject in any way to the law governing the Indian Forces, to which he is attached.

The point I was trying to make is this. Under the army Act certain duties and powers are given to Commanders-in-Chief in territories in which British officers and other ranks are serving. In particular, those powers concern the review of courts martial, for instance. Taking the case of Pakistan, for example, a number of British officers and other ranks will be serving with the Pakistanian Forces. They will be seconded from the British Service. It is purely a technical point—from their point of view, who will be Commander-in-Chief for the purposes of the Army Act? Will it be the man who is Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistanian Forces, who is not responsible to His Majesty's Government, and over whom, therefore, nobody has any control in the way in which he interprets the Army Act? Or will some other suitable man be sent out?

So far as British officers in India are concerned, the reviewing authority will be the general officer commanding British troops.

When they have all gone?

As regards British officers attached, it will be a special officer to be appointed for the purpose of reviewing their case.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.