§ Every man who holds a certificate of exemption granted under the principal Act shall, if required by a constable or by any person who has authority for the purpose from the Army Council, produce his, certificate or give particulars as to the authority by which the certificate was granted, and the grounds on which it was-granted.
§ If any man fails to comply with this provision, or gives particulars which are-false in any material respect, he shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move to leave-out the words, "any person who has authority for the purpose from the Army Council," and to insert instead thereof the words, "the Army Council in writing.' Surely we have not reached this stage yet in this country that everybody is to be liable to be stopped by a policeman in the street, and asked if he has got his proper certificate. If the Army Council wants this man, why cannot they write to him and give him written notice in black and white that such-and-such a thing is due? I think you are going to help to make your own Bill unacceptable if you are going to give power to a policeman to stop pedestrians in the street. I think we ought to adopt some arrangement which "would avoid this undignified method of procedure.
§ Mr. LONGI am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, because it would make the new provision absolutely worthless if this step was only to be taken after the Army Council gave authority in writing. I think the fears of my hon. Friend are quite groundless. There is no likelihood of the police stopping people universally, either in Piccadilly or anywhere else. The fact is that there are some places in the country where a considerable number of men are found who everybody believes are eligible for service. How the Army Council will get at them I do not know, because-they move from place to place, but we are assured that if it were only possible to demand from them the certificate they claim to have we should very soon reduce the number. The effect of this Clause would really, I think, be more moral than material.
Mr. E. HARVEYI should like to know how this method is going to deal with excepted persons. There are a very large number of persons who are excepted from the Act and who are of military age, and if the police challenge them suddenly they have no means of producing a certificate. They will have no certificate to produce, because they are excepted, and they would be in an extremely awkward position. Many of these people are people who might be liable to be seriously annoyed in this way.
§ Sir G. CAVEMay I point out that this Clause only applies to a man who has a certificate of exemption and not to a man who is excepted?
Mr. HARVEYYes; but in practice I want to know how the police are to know that a man is excepted. If the police are going to watering places, or wherever these people are supposed to congregate, they may drop upon a large number of excepted persons.
§ Mr. SHERWELLI think the President of the Local Government Board has quite unwittingly put his finger on the weak point of this proposal. In the case of an excise or gun licence he is stopped and asked to produce it because the authority responsible for the administration of the law is aware, by their records, that he should have a licence, but in this case the Government are proposing machinery for placing on the man himself a responsibility which properly attaches to the State. If the State is imposing liabilities upon a man, it is the State's duty to fine that man and take full responsibility for his case. I entirely dissent from this idea of trying to set up a system of compulsion to get in what is, by the admission of the Government, a very small number of men, and that you should adopt an inquisitorial system in every form, and every direction. I think this whole Clause is a perfectly ridiculous Clause, and one quite unworthy of inclusion in a Bill of this kind.
§ Mr. HOGGEI wish to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt)—to leave out the words "has authority" ["any person who has authority"], and to insert instead thereof "produces to him authority in writing."
Let me put a fresh point to show that I am not moving this to waste time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]. I do not know why the Solicitor-General is cheering. He has only been here three minutes. I do not know whether he was stopped by any authority on the road and asked to produce anything to show that he was Solicitor-General before he could secure admission to this Palace of Truth. Here we are to be stopped by any police man on the street anywhere, and to be asked to show that we have this certificate. We have had in the legislation that has gone through this House a great many proposals, with which the Home Secretary is quite familiar, in which examination has been made by police authorities of certain promotion. On the question of entering clubs, look at the hubbub which takes place if you suggest an ordinary policeman, has the authority to go into a club. Every body insists that he ought to be an in spector and a man in the force with some authority. I put the point seriously, that if the House is going to put this power in the hands of the police it ought to be confined to some person in the police force who has more authority than the ordinary constable. The ordinary constable is used for all kinds of occupations, and however essential a man he may be—
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel)On a point of Order, Sir. I do not think the hon. Member is speaking to his own Amendment. It does not propose to qualify the right of any constable.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He is perfectly correct, and I will confine myself to the Amendment, which is that he "produces to him authority in writing," that is, from the Army Council, that he is a man who is entitled to do this. "We have a lot of special constables just now put on for special purposes. They may not be given 867 that power, but they are policemen, and as the Clause reads any man with any authority in the force could do this. Surely it ought to be done by responsible people. That is my point, and I will not elaborate it more than to say that the responsibility ought to be thrown on the individual in a much more vivid fashion than that in which it is going to be done under this Clause.
§ Sir G. CAVEI hope this Amendment will not be pressed. The effect of the Clause is that the constable may make this request without any written or any express authority at all, and to suggest that the authorisation must be a written authority seems to me a little absurd. Why should an officer who has general powers from the military authorities to ask for the production of this certificate be required to produce a written authority in every particular case when asking a man for his certificate? He ought to be able to act on the information he has for the moment, without obtaining written authority.
§ Mr. L. JONESMay I ask what about the ordinary citizen who has no certificate and knows nothing about it? He is told, "You are apparently a man of military age"—perhaps he is a man not ordinarily resident in this country—an Australian walking in the street who is stopped by a policeman who demands his certificate of exemption. He says, "I have not one." What happens?
§ Sir G. CAVEThe policeman goes away, and attends to his other business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] This Clause only applies to the man who has a certificate of exemption, and if a man is asked to produce the certificate, and he has not one, all he has to say is, "I have not one."
§ Mr. JONESDo I understand that the suspected wrongdoer gets quit of any responsibility by saying, "I have not one "?
§ Sir G. CAVECertainly not. The hon. Gentleman put a case of a man with no certificate. He has only to say, "I have no certificate." If it turns out that he is saying what is not true, if he has a certificate and has not for the time produced it, he can, under this Clause, be made liable to penalties.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEWill the right hon. Gentleman clear up this point? He says there is no need for a constable or an 868 officer to have authority in writing. I can understand that, because his uniform would show that he had the proper authority. But what is to prevent a man without authority going up to another man and demanding that he should produce his certificate? What is there to show that he has that authority unless he has it in writing. There is nothing to prevent a man demanding a certificate from somebody else and saying he has that authority. Surely there should be some proof that he has it, otherwise you would have a great number of amateur persons doing this.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEThe right hon. Gentleman, when speaking of written authority, said it would be absurd to require the persons authorised by the Army Council to have a special written authority in each case. It has not been proposed that he should have written authority in each separate case, but that he should produce some general authority showing that he was some person authorised by the Army Council to make the request. The Solicitor General referred to the case of an officer, but under the Clause as it stands every officer and soldier might be a person appointed by the Army Council to do this business, and he produces no authority whatever. Is it contemplated not to give the person appointed by the Army Council some written authority showing that they are authorised?
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move in the second paragraph to leave out the words "in respect of each offence" ["he shall in respect of each offence be liable"].
3.0 A.M.
I do not see why there should be this piling up of penalties in a case like this. A poor man is liable to £20 fine or three months' imprisonment for an offence. I think that is quite enough, and a man might make two slight slips that are called offences in the course of a quarter of an hour. I do not think he should be liable to such a heavy penalty for each of them, and I beg to move this Amendment, which would do away with that piling up of offences of this trivial kind.
§ Sir G. CAVEI am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. Two breaches of the Act, even at short intervals, ought to be liable to penalties.
§ Mr. KINGI beg to move to leave out the words "or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months" ["a fine not exceeding £20, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months"].
This is a very important matter. Here the proposal is that an offender should on summary conviction be liable to a penalty not exceeding £20 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. I think the drafting of this Clause is rather unusual. Under the Summary Jurisdiction Act for a fine of £20 the alternative punishment is two months' imprisonment. Why is that well-recognised scale of £20 or two months altered here into £20 or three months' imprisonment? That is piling up penalties, and there is no reason for departing from a well-known principle of the Summary Jurisdiction Act. I venture to think that this departure is due to the draughtsman having been hurried. We see the results of that in almost, every line of the Bill. That is the first point I raise on my Amendment—why three months? The second point is this: Is it intended that the imprisonment should be in default of payment of the fine? If it is in default of payment, then there is no necessity to put this in at all. It is not clear whether the addition of these words "or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months "mean that the imprisonment is to be imposed at the will of the magistrate or whether they indicate an alternative if a fine is imposed, and not paid, and there are no effects which can be distrained upon. I am told by competent authorities that that is not clear on the drafting. I therefore suggest that the words at the end of this Clause should be left out, and that we should conclude the Clause with the words, "a fine not exceeding £20." That would leave the alternative to imprisonment for two months and do away with the uncertainty as to whether the imprisonment is to be an alternative. I hope my Amendment will be adopted, because it will then put the scale of punishment on the same basis as under the Summary Jurisdiction Act.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think my hon. Friend is rather confusing two things. There is under the Summary Jurisdiction Act, as he indicated, a scale which provides that in default of payment of the fine a certain term of imprisonment may be imposed. That is one form of alternative. That is not what is intended here. The intention here is to give the magistrates the option. If they think it is a mild offence, 870 they will no doubt impose a fine, perhaps a small fine. But the offence may be a serious one, and in such a Case the intention is to give them an opportunity of imposing imprisonment, not as an alternative, but as an original and substantive penalty. We purposely take three months months as a maximum penalty in serious cases. I think, therefore, the observations of my hon. Friend do not really apply, and I hope we may not expend much time on this matter.
§ Amendment negatived.
Mr. GRIFFITHI beg to move at the end of the Clause to add a new Subsection—
"(2) If any person alters or tampers with a certificate of exemption granted under the principal Act, or personates or falsely represents himself to be a person to whom such a certificate has been granted, or allows any other person to have possession of any such certificate issued for his use alone, he shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour."
I do not want to make a speech on this proposed Sub-section, but submit it to the President of the Local Government Board. There is a good deal of handing over of these certificates from man to man, and a considerable amount of personation. I submit that the Military Service legislation should be brought into analogy with the Muitions Act in this respect.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think there is a good deal to be said for this proposal which corresponds to others of a similar character, and, as we think it would be an improvement to the Bill, we accept it.
§ Mr. HOGGEI am sorry my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Griffith) did not explain this matter. I invite him to make a short speech, telling us on what evidence he suggests this further addition to these most restrictive proposals. Has there been any cases in the Courts of tampering with these certificates? I have noticed very few in the newspapers, and I do not know whether this state of affairs exists. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is really so and requires to be dealt with? It is a remarkable thing for the Solicitor General to get up at once and say that the Government will accept this Amendment. When suggestions come from somebody in favour of the Bill they are accepted, but if they come from 871 somebody opposed to the Bill, then there are always strong arguments against their acceptance. The right hon. Gentleman really ought to tell the House whether, of his own knowledge, this proposal is absolutely necessary. I believe so much in him and have such a respect for him, that I would agree to let it through, if he tells us that of his own knowledge he knows that this practice obtains.
§ Mr. KINGI have an Amendment on the Paper to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and I wish to ask him why he is seeking to make this offence an indictable offence? If you punish it with six months' imprisonment, you make it an offence which might be an indictable offence. I do not see that there is any necessity for that. I hope that point will be considered.
§ Mr. L. JONESI only rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment what is the exact force on the words "or allows any other person to have possession of any such certificate issued for his use alone." It seems to preclude a man depositing the certificate with any person even for safe 'custody, and I can hardly think that is intended by the Mover of the Amendment.
§ Mr. WHITEHOUSEI hope that we may have that point considered carefully, because, as the Committee well knows, occasionally certificates are taken away from people without their being willing parties. I should have thought that people might certainly leave certificates in safe custody when they did so without the slightest intention of the certificates being misused, and there ought to be some safeguard provided to protect those who bonâ fide give up a certificate for the purpose of placing it in safe custody.
§ Sir G. CAVEI think that is a fair point to consider, and we will examine into it between now and the Report stage. The only intention is to proceed against the person who allows a certificate to be improperly used.
§ Mr. HOGGEI beg to move to leave out the Clause, and I do so in order that we may have a Division. I object very strongly to giving any ordinary police constable the power to stop any citizen in the street or any other public place and demand from him this certificate.
§ Mr. ANDERSONI hope in any case that before this Clause comes up in the House again the Government will consider whether they are devising in the Clause the best and most suitable machinery for the purpose they have in view. I am sure that what is needed is that we should have the maximum of effciency with the minimum of annoyance, and it does seem to me that under this proposal the subject may be rendered liable to a good deal of annoyance. I gather that when a man has not a certificate and says so to the police-he is, according to the Solicitor-General, straightway sent about his business. Surely the man who has not a certificate-and ought to have one is a man about whom the policeman desires to make some-inquiry. Then I think it is also necessary, apart from the policeman, that those who make this demand should have some sign to exhibit of their authority to aft in the matter. The President of the Local Government Board said that all this was on a par with demanding the-production of a gun licence. Sometimes, he told us, his gun licence is demanded from him, and if it is, he always accedes to the request very cheerfully. I should like to recall to the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman an incident which he himself has probably long since forgotten. The first time the hon. Member for Blackburn, who was then an excise officer, met the President of the Local Government Board was when the-right hon. Gentleman was one of a shooting party in which there were a number-of guns. The Member for Blackburn demanded to see the gun licences of the-members of the party, and the only one who had a gun licence was the President of the Local Government Board. So far from being cheerful about the matter the President of the Local Government Board got rather angry with the Member for Blackburn, and threatened to report him to his superior officers. Despite that fact the President's friends were fined and' the Member for Blackburn was complimented for standing up in that way.
§ Mr. LONGPerhaps I may be allowed to explain that what annoyed me was that the hon. Member for Blackburn on that occasion walked through the best bit of covert on the shooting.