NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.

HC Deb 21 October 1909 vol 12 cc619-25

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Mr. CLAUDE HAY

This Bill is one which I do not desire to oppose, but I am anxious to have some information upon it. There is a memorandum in the face of the Bill which does give some information, but it is scarcely sufficient. This Bill seeks, by means of a Schedule, to make a very large number of amendments in the Naval Discipline Act, and when we reach it, I hope the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will be able to give us full and detailed information regarding them. In the earlier part of the Bill there is an important phrase. In Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, there occur the words "naval detention quarters." I desire to know whether that is a mere alteration of name or whether these quarters are going to be different as regards size, light and comfort from the existing naval prisons in which offenders are confined. My information regarding the alteration of the words "prisoner" and "detention" in connection with the Army, is that it has been an alteration in name only. Although we can claim that in respect of the alteration in connection with the Army there has been some improvement, it has not to any appreciable degree attained what was promised when the measure passed through Parliament. In regard to the Navy we must remember that the places of detention are not all ashore, and that the places on board ship must at all events be less comfortable than those on land. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to give us some promise of considerable improvement in the conditions under which the men suffer punishment.

Mr. HAZLETON moved to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."

I propose this Amendment not as a protest against what is in the Bill but as a protest against what is not in it. The House will generally recognise that the Bill is a very excellent one so far as it goes. My complaint against it is that it does not go far enough. The object of the Bill as set out in the Memorandum is to effect for the Navy an amendment of the law to prevent sailors convicted of offences purely against naval discipline being subjected to the stigma attached to imprisonment, and detention is proposed to be substituted in certain cases where the punishment at present would be imprisonment. I think everybody will agree that that is a step in the right direction. It is a humane and sensible course to take, and for my part I only hope it will be carried into law. The reason I have put down this Motion for the rejection of the Bill is because I want to ask the Government why they have stopped here. Why have they not gone further. The Bill proposes to amend the Naval Discipline Act, 1884, and I would like to know why they have not proposed to remove what I consider as the biggest blot in that Act, namely, the provision with regard to flogging. I do not propose at this stage to discuss the case for or against flogging. Flogging was abolished in the Army in the early eighties, thanks very largely to the efforts of Mr. Parnell and the Irish party.

Although the provisions with regard to flogging still remain in the Naval Discipline Act, it has been suspended for a considerable number of years. It has been so suspended, not by Act of Parliament, but merely by Admiralty Regulation. There is no security or guarantee whatever that the regulation may not be withdrawn to-morrow by a stroke of the pen. If it has been abolished in the Army I should like to know why the opportunity of this measure has not been taken to abolish it in the Navy as well. Is the Navy more criminal than the Army? Why are the sailors of this Empire to be subjected to a degradation to which the soldiers in the Army are not subjected? I should like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill what is the justification for the retention of these Clauses in the Naval Discipline Act? Why is flogging retained in it as a legal punishment? Is the liability to flogging to which sailors are subject a good recruiting argument for the Navy? You are building more "Dreadnoughts" at the present time. You will want men to man them, and I do not believe that the fact that you deliberately reserve the right to flog these men will help you to man those ships. I know that so far as my own countrymen are concerned I shall take every opportunity to place before them the facts and the dangers and liabilities they incur by entering the Navy under the present conditions. I am anxious to ascertain the views of the Government on this question. This seems a suitable opportunity for making a very necessary amendment in the law. There would not be any serious opposition to such an amendment in the law if it were proposed.

What is the law on the subject at the present time? Section 52 of the Act provides for imprisonment or corporal punishment. Paragraph (11) of Section 53 provides that: "In any case of corporal punishment not more than 48 lashes shall be inflicted: no officer shall be subject to corporal punishment; no petty or non-commissioned officer shall be subject to corporal punishment, except in case of mutiny." Paragraph (3) of Section 56 provides that: "Except in case of mutiny no man shall be sentenced by the Commanding Officer to corporal punishment until his offence has been inquired into by one or more officers appointed by such Commanding Officer, and his or their opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner reported to such Commanding Officer, and the Commanding Officer shall thereupon act as, according to his judgment, may seem right." In conformity with these provisions there is one regulation contained in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions which I should like to read to the House. It is Section 752, which says: "By corporal punishment is to be understood the usual punishment at the gangway; it is to be carried out according to the custom of the service, and in the presence of the captain, the officers and the ship's company or so many as can be spared from other duties. Every other description of corporal punishment, by rope, stick, or any other instrument, is hereby forbidden, with the exception of the authorised caning and birching of boys." I have only to say that, in my opinion, the right and proper course for the Government is to take advantage of the measure now before the House in order to repeal the provisions I have mentioned. In bringing forward this Motion I do not intend, of course, to press it to a Division, as I approve of the objects of the Bill otherwise. I merely make this protest.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)

I am very loath indeed to detain the House at this hour, but I think a response to the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman is called for. It is necessary that I should say one or two words about the scope of the Bill. It incorporates a very valuable reform, and I am quite sure that with its passage all parties in the House will be glad to associate themselves. We propose to make such verbal amendments in the Naval Discipline Act as will enable us as a rule to set up the punishment of commitment to detention quarters in lieu of commitment to prison in cases of offences purely against naval discipline. We adopt generally the example set by the War Office—already followed by such good results—in setting up Army Detention Barracks in 1906. We have issued a White Paper showing verbal alterations in the Naval Discipline Act, and which are set out in the Schedule to this Bill. Let me take the present system in the Navy. When a sailor commits an offence against naval discipline—for instance, if he is absent without leave or deserts, if he uses insulting language or contempt to a superior officer, if he wilfully disobeys a lawful command, or if he strikes or uses violence to a superior officer—he is committed to a naval prison for a maximum of two years. The theoretical minimum is one day, but in practice it is 21 days. If he is sentenced at Devonport he goes to Bodmin Prison; if sentenced at Portsmouth or Chatham he goes to Portsmouth, if the punishment is 56 days and under, and to Lewes if it is over 56 days. On sentence the man is put into prison rig and taken in the custody of a Metropolitan police officer by train to Bodmin, Portsmouth, or Lewes, as the case may be. Supposing he is coming from Portsmouth to Lewes, he is taken in the train to Brighton, and there taken out, and, whenever I have seen him, he is handcuffed. It may not always be so. Then he is removed by train to Lewes, and taken out handcuffed—at least, the one I saw was. He is taken in a cab to prison, his hair is cut close, and he is confined in a prison cell. The first month he does three hours' shot drill every day, seven hours' oakum picking, and is kept throughout in strict separation, and for the first fourteen days he sleeps without a mattress. If he earns his marks he passes into the second stage after 28 days, and then he does not pick oakum, or do shot drill, but he does about nine hours' industrial work daily, that is, rough sewing work, partly in the cell, and partly in the associated sewing room. He passes in due course, as he earns his marks, on to the third and fourth stages, which do not vary substantially from the second. I am leading up to the changes which we propose, and which are very real ones. Let us go back to the first stage man, with his seven hours' oakum picking and three hours' shot drill. The oakum is picked in the cell, and the work is certainly monotonous and tedious. As to the shot drill, the man does two spells daily, each of 1½ hours' duration. The men do it briskly, and, so far as I could see, without apparent physical discomfort. I tried it myself for a short spell, and I have no doubt whatever that, when a man gets used to it, and his muscles get set to the bending, lifting, and carrying motion, there is no very great strain on a strong man, but it is a useless and stupid task to put a young sailor upon.

The hon. Gentleman asked if we were going to make a mere change in title, and rather suggested that the War Office has done that. Let me tell him that the Army Detention Barracks at Gosport are a very great improvement indeed upon the old prison system. We propose something which is far more than a change in title. We propose, in the cases which I have mentioned, to provide detention quarters at each of the home ports, Chatham, Devonport, and Portsmouth. The offender will not be a "prisoner," but a "man under detention." He will go to "Detention Quarters," in naval rig, under a naval escort. He will be confined in a separate "room"—not a "cell"—wearing ordinary uniform. He will be under orders of naval petty officers, and the captain of the detention quarters will be a commissioned officer on the active list of the Navy. During the first month of his sentence, as against the old system of oakum picking and shot drill, he will do five hours' physical training, and Service drill and instruction, and five hours industrial work. During the succeeding months he will perform, daily, 4½ hours physical training and Service drill and instruction, and 3½ to 4½ hours' industrial, work. The Service drill and instruction will be of the nature to improve his physique, and to render him more efficient in the discharge of his duties as a sailor when he returns to his ship. That is the genius of the new plan, and I am deeply interested in it, as are all members of the Board of Admiralty. The approximate cost of building detention quarters at Chatham and Devonport, and of converting Portsmouth Naval Prison, will be about £50,000, and the approximate time to complete these buildings from the date of the order will be about 2½ years. The thing will take time, the change must be gradual, and we do not even propose to bring this Bill into operation till 1st January, 1911. We mean to make punishment deterrent—severely deterrent if you like—but not degrading. We want to make it real punishment, but we want to have in view the turning out of the man a better sailor. I have myself carefully studied the Army Detention Barracks at Gosport and at the Corodino, Malta. I also went very closely into the naval prison system at Lewes and Portsmouth. I greatly rejoice that I should have been privileged to have a hand in bringing about this salutary charge, and I am sure that this House will cordially approve it. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hazleton) has recognised, as we all must do, that we are engaged upon a salutary reform. With regard to what is called flogging in the Navy, namely, the corporal punishment inflicted under Sections 52 (4) of the Naval Discipline Act, that has been entirely suspended by Admiralty Order since 1881, and no man has since that date been subject to the punishment. The hon. Gentleman has some anxiety lest by a stroke of the pen the old system may be re-enacted. I do not think he need have any anxiety on that point. There is not the slightest prospect of it so far as I know.

Mr. KEATING

Then why not put it in the Bill.

Dr. MACNAMARA

That is exactly the point to which I am coming. That would mean such a very considerable change in the whole scope of the Bill, and objections might be taken to it in certain quarters, with the result that at this late period of a very long Session, we might endanger this reform upon which we have set our hearts. If we were revising the Naval Discipline Act my hon. Friend would be able to raise the point.

Mr. HAZLETON

Would the Government put it in them?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I cannot say. What I want to get is Naval Detention Quarters, and I am afraid that if we asked for anything more just now we should endanger the Bill. I appeal to the hon. Member and to the House to bear in mind that there has been no flogging since 1881, and there is no prospect of the regulation being rescinded in any way. If he will be good enough to leave the matter where it is and give us this reform, he will be doing something to improve the case of the young sailor very much.

Mr. HAZLETON

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Joseph Pease.]

Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes after Two o'clock a.m., Friday, 22nd October, 1909.