HC Deb 12 April 1923 vol 162 cc1461-6

The following paragraph shall be substituted for the first paragraph of Sub-section (3) of Section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children): Where a proceeding is instituted against a soldier of the regular forces under any Act, or at common law, for the purpose of enforcing against him any such liability as above in this Section mentioned, then—

  1. (a) if at the date of service of the process the soldier is quartered out of the jurisdiction of tae court, or (where the proceeding is before a court of summary jurisdiction), out of the potty sessional division in which the proceeding is instituted, the process shall be served on his commanding officer, and such service shall not be valid unless there be left therewith, in the hands of the commanding officer, a sum of money (to be adjudged as costs incurred in obtaining the order or decree, if any order or decree is made against the soldier) of a sufficient amount to enable him to attend the hearing of the case and return to his quarters, and such sum may be expended by the commanding officer for that purpose;
  2. (b) in any other ease the process may be served either on the commanding officer or on the soldier, provided that where the process is served on the soldier, a copy thereof shall he sent by the court by which it is issued to the commanding officer by registered post as soon as possible after the process is served, and in any case at least four days before the day fixed for the hearing of the case:
Provided that no proceedings in this Section mentioned shall be valid against a soldier of the regular forces if his commanding officer certifies that the soldier is under orders for service beyond the seas, and that in his opinion it will not be possible for the soldier to attend the hearing and return to his quarters in sufficient time to enable him to embark for such service. Every such certificate shall be sent to the court and shall be final and conclusive.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Lansbury:

Leave out the words, paragraph shall be substituted for the first paragraph of Sub-section (3) of and insert instead thereof the words, amendments shall he made to.

The CHAIRMAN

This Amendment is unnecessary. in regard to the second Amendment, also in the name of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), I suggest that it ought to read somewhat differently.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness)

On a point of Order. I understand that you, Mr. Chairman, have suggested to the hon. Member of Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) that he should move this Amendment in a slightly different form. I want to suggest to him that he should withdraw his Amendment in order that words may be inserted to carry out his object in a more efficient way.

Mr. LANSBURY

I beg to move to leave out the words paragraph shall be substituted for the first paragraph of sub-section (3) of section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children) and to insert instead thereof the words amendment shall be made in sub-section (2) of section one hundred and forty-five of the Army Act (which relates to the liability Of a soldier to maintain his wife and children) after the words in respect of a wife or children,' wherever they occur, there shall be inserted the words whether legitimate or illegitimate ' and tire words I and in respect of a bastard child, three shillings,' and in respect of a bastard child. two shillings ' and in respect of a bastard child, one shilling and sixpence,' shall be omitted. Those alterations simply mean that a child shall not be penalised under the Army Act for any supposed sin of its father or mother. I suppose it will be acknowledged that none of us chose our parents, and if hon. Members remembered that fact when discussing nationality it would be a very good thing. When we are considering the children born within Our own nation we should remember that fact. No child ever asked to be born or chose its parents, therefore there should never be any disability imposed upon a child legally or morally. During the War we made no discrimination so far as subsistence allowances were concerned, and in these days I think we ought to remove any sort of disability imposed upon a child. I understand that the Minister is going to accept this Amendment, but I do not want to withdraw it until I understand exactly what it is the Minister proposes in its place.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

The form in which you have put the Question, Mr. Hope, fully protects the Amendment which I am to ask the Member for Bow and Bromley to accept. The Question he raised has been before the House on former occasions. It was raised two years ago by the present Minister of Health, and my predecessor made a sympathetic answer. He pointed out that there was little urgency in the matter, because the provisions of the Army Act, although they distinguish between the bastard and the legitimate child, were more generous to the bastard than the provisions of the civil law. But the War Office practice has always been, as far as possible, to put both on an equality. It was done during the War, and I am glad to say for both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War authorise me to accept this Amendment in principle.

I should at the same time point out that it will not in fact have a very large effect, because its operation, in the case of the bastard child, will be limited by the maintenance orders made by the civil courts, and in civil courts, whether for a bastard or for a legitimate child, there is a hard and fast maximum under the present law of ten shillings. My reason for accepting this Amendment is, that apart from the desirability of avoiding any appearance of punishing the child, as the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley pointed out, for the sins of his parents, the Amendment may have some practical effect in increasing the speed with which arrears under these maintenance orders may he paid over. Of course, if Amendments of the Bastardy laws are at any time passed, much wider effect will immediately become possible. I think I ought to mention one difficulty which occurs about this Amendment. It will be in the recollection of the House that it is not usual on the Committee stage of the Army Act for the Government with any readiness to accept amendments because if no amendments are accepted no report stage is necessary, but I have arranged with the hon. Member and also with the Opposition Whips, that on acceptance of these Amendments will not be used as a pretext for depriving us to-night of that report stage which would not have been necessary if we had refused to listen to argument on this and other matters. If that understanding be agreed to, and if the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley will withdraw his Amendment, I will immediately move an Amendment which covers the same point in a form which I am told is more satisfactory.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member has not moved his Amendment on the Paper. The Amendment which he has moved is precisely the one which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is ready to accept.

Mr. TURNER

I should like to know whether the Amendment which is now to be accepted removes the word "bastard" from the Bill. If it does not remove that word, it does not meet the point that I want to see met. The word "bastard" may be a good English word, but it is a very opprobrious epithet indeed to use in connection with children, and I think the word "illegitimate" is the right one to use. Will the word "bastard" be removed by the acceptance of this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN

The Amendment says that after the words "in respect of a wife or children," wherever they occur—that is to say, in the original Act—the words "whether legitimate or illegitimate ' shall be inserted, and that the words" and in respect of a bastard child," which are repeated three times, shall be omitted.

Mr. TURNER

Thank you.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS

I am afraid there is some mistake about the bargain indicated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We appreciate to the full the intention of the Government to make the Amendment as indicated. We believe that they themselves see the reasonableness of the suggestion. But my hon. and gallant Friend is entirely in error in his intimation that the acceptance of this Amendment binds the Opposition not to take the steps that they may think necessary on the Report stage. No such arrangement has been made nor, indeed, could any arrangement of that kind be made; and, incidentally, may I point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the absurdity of laying down any such condition? Here is an Amendment which the House generally would accept, but, if the proposition now laid down were accepted by any Opposition, the way for the Government to facilitate its business would be to introduce nothing, because then there could not be any Report stage. I only want to make it perfectly clear that there must be some mistake, and that no such bargain as my hon. and gallant Friend intimated has been made.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I think that really there is no substantial difference between us. The point is that we want to get the Report stage as well as the Committee stage to-night. If we are obdurate, there will be no Report stage, because when the Committee stage has been taken on the Floor of the House and no Amendments have been made, no Report stage is necessary. If our getting the Report stage, if necessary, to-night, is objected to, we cannot accept the Amendment here, but I would see if we could get it put in in another place, because I do not wish to make the Amendment suffer, but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, if he can, to meet us in this matter, and not to make any undue difficulty about the Report. stage, because, although it does not affect this Amendment, it does affect another Amendment on the Paper, which could not be put in in another place because it is a matter of money.

Mr. THOMAS

I only wanted to correct the mistake. It would have led to complications if it went forth that a bargain had been made and then it was repudiated. I quite understand and appreciate the situation, and only want to make the matter perfectly clear, so that there may be no misunderstanding afterwards.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not complain if, at the end of the Committee stage, we also take the Report stage to-night?

Mr. THOMAS

Oh, no.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

There is one point that I want to raise on the main Clause. I know that, if there should be any points omitted during the Committee stage, those matters can be discussed on Report stage, to-night, and in any case I do not intend to occupy the time of the Committee for very long. I want to ask the Government a question which happens to affect certain persons in my constituency. In the last Parliament certain legislative steps were taken in conjunction with some of the Dominion Governments—I think with all--about the cases of wives of Colonial soldiers who had been left deserted with their children in this country. The law was clumsy, and steps were taken by Imperial means to facilitate the bringing of these soldiers to book and charging them for the maintenance of their wives and children. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether that has been put into operation, how it is working, whether it has been successful, and what information he can give us upon it. It affects a number of very unfortunate people and I should be grateful for any information.

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Samuel Hoare)

The procedure to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred has nothing to do with this Act. It is the result of a separate Act of Parliament entirely. All I can tell him is that I understand the Dominions have raised no objection.

Question put, and agreed to.