HC Deb 11 May 1916 vol 82 cc1064-5

Regulations made under the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall contain a provision that when an appeal against the decision of a local tribunal is made by the applicant, and no appeal has been made by the military representative, it shall not be competent for the Appeal Tribunal to withdraw the certificate or to vary it in a sense unfavourable to the applicant.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

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

Mr. SNOWDEN

In moving this Clause, may I say that there have been a good many cases where the applicant has been given his non-combatant certificate by the local tribunal, and, having appealed to the county tribunal, it has been taken away, and he has been assigned combatant duties. The purpose of the Amendment is to prevent the Appeal Tribunal altering the first decision to the disadvantage of the applicant.

Mr. LONG

I gather that it is desired that this point should be put into the Regulations?

Mr. SNOWDEN

I want to put this into the Act,

Mr. LONG

As my right hon. and learned Friend said, "I am quite willing to look into the matter, but I cannot by Regulation agree to vary, or diametrically to alter, what has constitutionally been settled by Act of Parliament. If the difficulties referred to can be removed by Regulation I will try to remove them.

Mr. L. JONES

I would like to press this point. It may be small, but it has been a grievance in a great many cases. There are cases where the conscientious objector has been granted non-combatant service, and has appealed to the Appeal Tribunal for absolute exemption. The military representative has not objected, and it seems very hard that the Appeal Tribunal should not have been content with dismissing the appeal, but have actually gone further and said, "Because you have chosen to re-open the case therefore we shall give you less good treatment than that given by the local tribunal which knew more about you." In law that is a rehearing and therefore we cannot put in a case. In practice, if the military representative does not appeal, I really cannot see why the Appeal Tribunal should not be content with dismissing the appeal.

Mr. LONG

In reality my hon. Friend is handing the whole power over to the military representative, and the tribunal is to be governed by the action of the military representative. It means that the guidance of the tribunal is to be in the hands of the military representative. That is what I want to prevent. I do not want to make them dependent on the military representative. It is for them to do what they think is just, and I believe that is what they are trying to do.

Mr. NIELD

I think, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe has admitted, this is indeed a re-hearing, and, therefore, if a man challenges the decision below by making an appeal, he really must put up with the consequences of the appeal. Let me recite an instance of what has taken place over and over again to my knowledge. The papers at the local tribunal have been regarded as quite sufficient, and a certificate has been granted, but at the Appeal Tribunal the applicant has come before the tribunal personally, and it is found that the certificate of exemption ought never to have been granted. The man has faced the music for the first time, and, therefore, I venture to think, the Appeal Tribunals ought not to be bound in that case to leave the man just precisely where he was, when obviously the order below has been made by simply taking the statements which appear on paper.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I think that in such a case the applicant has the right to go back again to the local tribunal and have a re-hearing by that body.

Question put, and negatived.