HC Deb 24 May 1916 vol 82 cc2123-9

(1) Where a decision of a local tribunal has been varied on appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, any certificate of exemption granted in pursuance thereof shall be reviewed or renewed only by the Appeal Tribunal by whom the decision has been varied or by such other Appeal Tribunal as may be provided by regulations on an application made direct to that tribunal, and the provisions of the principal Act as to the review or renewal of certificates of exemption shall apply accordingly.

(2) A certificate of exemption may be granted under the principal Act subject to the condition that the certificate shall not be renewable or open to review except on an application made with the leave of the tribunal, and unless leave is so given, the provisions of the principal Act as to the renewal or review of certificates shall not apply to a certificate granted subject to such a condition.

The decision of the tribunal granting or refusing leave under this provision shall be final.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "review" ["renewable or open to review"], and insert instead thereof the word "variation."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)

This is not of a very far-reaching character. The word "variation" is required instead of the word "review" in order to make it quite clear that it would be possible to make application for the withdrawal of a certificate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

After the word "tribunal" ["with the leave of the tribunal"], insert the words "on whose decision the certificate has been so granted."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "review" ["renewal or review of certificates"], and insert instead thereof the word "variation."—Agreed to.

At end of Clause add new Sub-section—

"(3) It is hereby declared that the power to grant special certificates of exemption in the case of an application on conscientious grounds under Subsection (3) of Section 2 of the principal Act is additional to and not in derogation of the general power conferred by that Act to grant an absolute, conditional, or temporary certificate in such cases."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. LONG

This is an Amendment I promised on Report stage should be made in another place, and it has there been adopted. It does not affect the law, but merely declares the law to be what it is intended to be.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having caused this Amendment to be inserted. I believe he thinks, and I entirely agree with him, that the original Act was perfectly clear, and that the tribunals under the original Act have power to grant absolute exemption on conscientious grounds. The Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to cause to be inserted will now remove any possible grounds for misapprehension on the part of the tribunals, and will be a material step towards clearing up the whole of this vexed question.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments: Add new Subsection.

(4) Paragraph (6) of the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect as if for the expression "local tribunals" wherever that expression occurs there were substituted the word "tribunals."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. LONG

This Amendment is inserted in order to give my Department the same power in regard to the Appeal Tribunals as they already have in regard to the local tribunals. The words of the principal Act did not cover the appeal as well as the local tribunals.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments: Add new Subsection.

(5) Regulations made under the Second Schedule of the principal Act may provide for permitting the rehearing of a case by a tribunal in cases specified in the regulations.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. LONG

This Amendment is also intended to clear up a point in regard to the power of rehearing cases. There seems to be some doubt in the matter. This Amendment provides that in cases where a rehearing is desirable arrangements can be made for a rehearing.

Mr. SNOWDEN

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose in the Regulations to be framed to make himself the authority to decide whether a case shall be reheard or not?

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Regulations will give him the power to compel a rehearing?

Captain CASSEL

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible under these Regulations to permit a rehearing when a man has once joined the Colours? If the Regulations permit that, I submit it opens a very serious objection, because it would then throw a doubt on the status of a man who once was a soldier serving together with soldiers, and would place courts-martial in a very difficult position through not knowing whether he was a soldier or not. If the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that the Regulations will not allow such rehearing when a man has once joined the Colours, it will meet my objection.

Mr. LONG

I am asked whether I propose to constitute myself the authority to decide whether a case shall be reheard or not. I have already undertaken that in certain cases where there seems primâ facie evidence that there has been some miscarriage of justice, we should suggest a rehearing. That would not apply to the case of a man already serving in the Army.

Mr. PRINGLE

I wish to have this matter cleared up. I understand that the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Captain Cassel) was as to whether the case of a man who was improperly with the Colours could be reheard by the tribunal. I understand that this power of rehearing was given mainly for the purpose of dealing with cases of men who had been improperly handed over to the military authorities and had become soldiers. If that is not so, then the advantage of the Regulations seems to be practically of no account.

Mr. MORRELL

May we have some definite reply?

Mr. LONG

I have already given a reply which I thought was perfectly plain. The fact that it was plain is emphasised by the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just made. He suggests that the tribunal should come in between the Army Council and the soldier. Once a man has passed into the Army he is under the control of the Army Council, and it is for them to release him. The tribunal cannot rehear the case of a man who has passed out of their jurisdiction into the jurisdiction of the Army Council. It is quite a misstatement to suggest that all that was asked for was that the case of the man who had enlisted should be considered. What has been asked for repeatedly is that where a case has been heard by a tribunal and where it appears that there has been a miscarriage of justice, before that man passes to the Colours there shall be a rehearing. The case of the man who joins the Army has to be dealt with on totally different grounds. It is a question whether the Army Council decide to retain him, or pass him over to the civil authorities to be dealt with in some other way. If they take that course some machinery must be provided. I cannot interfere in the cases of men who are already in the Army.

Mr. MORRELL

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position in this matter. I would like to give him a definite case, for the facts of which I can vouch. Jack Forster applied for exemption and was refused exemption, and then appealed against the decision of the local tribunal. Under the law it is impossible for this man to be taken as a soldier, but by some mistake of the military authorities he was arrested as a deserter.

Mr. LONG

I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. That is a case for the military authorities. The military authorities have power to release that man if they see fit. I have no power.

Mr. MORRELL

This is a very important matter, because it may prejudice his hearing before the Appeal Tribunal if he has already been taken as a soldier. It is very desirable that the Local Government Board should have the power to take this man back, seeing that he has been improperly taken by the military authorities.

Mr. LONG

No!

Mr. MORRELL

Surely if he has been improperly taken the Local Government Board should have power to take him back and see that he has a fair rehearing of his case, otherwise it seems to me that the power which the Local Government Board have taken under this Regulation is really of no value.

Mr. LOUGH

I do not desire to raise the case of the man already in the Army, but I would like to ask whether, from the way this Sub-section is drawn now, it is within the power of the Local Government Board to fix in the Regulations the conditions under which the rehearing should take place. That is a very strong power, and this House ought to know the conditions under which a rehearing may be asked for. If it is left to the Regulations, not only to fix the rehearing, but the conditions and circumstances under which the rehearing may take place, it amounts to this, that the legislation is not done here in Parliament, but really by the Local Government Board. I do think that the concluding words of the Sub-section are drawn a little too widely. I want a reassurance on this point, and I want to be told what is the object in view.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT

Two types of cases have been raised, and I think there is some confusion. I do not under- stand the explanation of the President of the Local Government Board. The case raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Morrell) is that of a man whose application had been determined, and who had improperly and contrary to the Statute been taken into the Army. My right hon. Friend's reply to that was that it was for the Army authorities to deal with that man and decide whether he should be released or not. Is that answer not contrary to the fact? Is it not rather a case where the Army authorities have no power to retain the man, and that it is not a case where they have power to release him? The other type of case is that in which a man's application has been determined by a tribunal and they have refused to grant him exemption, and he has passed into the Army. After that has been done the tribunal discovers that it has made a mistake, that it is wrong, that it has decided this man's case contrary to the evidence, or through a mistake as to the exact meaning of the Statute. The tribunal then desires a rehearing of the case, to decide whether this man ought, in accordance with the Statute, to be granted exemption or ought to be passed into the Army. According to the Amendment, I understand that the tribunal is to be given power to rehear cases. Is that not a proper case for the tribunal to rehear? What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this is a case for the Army Council to consider and determine? The Army Council cannot take the place of a tribunal, and cannot do the work of a tribunal. If the tribunal is to have power to rehear cases, is this not a clear and proper case for them to rehear?

4.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE

I only rose because the right hon. Gentleman did not get up. He is usually very clear, and the fact that we do not understand him now should convince him that some other explanation is required. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will state the point of law as to whether if a man who is arrested improperly by the military and made a soldier, the question of retaining him in the Army rests with the Army Council? I see the Solicitor-General shakes his head, which shows that he differs from the President of the Local Government Board, and that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong for once.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave)

No. But the question now asked is, if a man is improperly taken into the Army, whether the remedy is through the Army Council alone? The answer is quite plain. It is for the Civil Courts, and should not be dealt with by these Regulations.

Sir A. MARKHAM

Let us be quite clear about this. I do not wish to obstruct the Clause, but I will give a case from my own Constituency. A man was taken into the Army. His appeal was refused by the local tribunal. He appealed. Meantime, he was sent to Aldershot. The question arose whether he was to appeal back to the county authorities. Eventually the military authorities agreed to allow him to come back from Aldershot to allow him to have his case tried by the Appeal Court. Can the Solicitor-General give the House an assurance that under this Amendment no power will be vested in the military authorities to prevent the Appeal Court bringing this man back to have his case tried?

Sir G. CAVE

I can give that assurance at once.

Question put, and agreed to.