HC Deb 14 February 1938 vol 331 cc1663-9

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 20, after "court" insert: , or to any person who is discharged on account of fraudulent enlistment.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Butler

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

There was a certain amount of discussion on the subject of fraudulent enlistment, and questions were asked as to what it really meant. We have investigated the matter very closely and an Amendment was moved in another place referring to the terms of fraudulent enlistment. The effect of the Amendment is to extend the rights conferred by the Bill. That is a concession, which improves the conditions for those who will benefit by this particular Clause. Those men affected who have committed the offence of fraudulent enlistment will now receive a credit, subject to six weeks disqualification instead of receiving no credit. I think hon. Members will realise that this is an improvement on the original Bill.

Let me explain a little further how we came to this decision. We found that in the Army and the Air Force the term "fraudulent enlistment" has a somewhat technical significance, but I need not trouble the House with an explanation of it. It means, roughly, that a man enlists in one section of the Forces and then re-enlists in another in what is described as a fraudulent way. We came to the conclusion that that particular offence is no worse than the offences referred to under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act or the Air Force Act, and, therefore, it was unfair to class the man who had fraudulently enlisted in the category of deserters or recruits not finally approved, which deprived him of any credit and, therefore, of benefit. We have, therefore, reduced the status of the offence of fraudulent enlistment from that of deserter to that of one convicted of an offence under one of the particular Acts to which I have referred and have thereby reduced the penalty inflicted upon a person who had fraudulently enlisted. I hope that this examination will show that this is a concession and that the position is thereby improved for the man who had fraudulently enlisted in the Forces.

Mr. White

Can the hon. Member say whether the period of six weeks is fixed or varied?

Mr. Butler

It is fixed.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

Again, I agree with the hon. Member that this is an improvement upon the Bill as it left the House. I do not understand how it came to pass that the term "fraudulent enlistment" was left out of the Bill as originally drafted, because I understood that the object was to give credit to people who had been excluded under one section of the principal Act. What has been done is simply to right what has been an obvious wrong. The question of the loss of benefit for six weeks comes up afterwards on another Amendment, and we shall have something to say on that matter.

Mr. Speaker

A Special Entry will be made.

Lords Amendment: In line 30, leave out from "benefit" to "during," in line 32.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Butler

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The reason for this Amendment is to deal with an anomaly which we did not perceive during the passage of the Bill. It deals with the case of a man who had been in civil employment before he entered the Forces and who while he was in civil employment had accrued contributions sufficient to entitle him to benefit when he left the Forces. I would ask the House to picture the case of the man who had accrued this benefit in civil life, who then entered the Forces and was convicted of one of the particular misdemeanours under one of the Acts referred to in Sub-section (2). He would then, clearly, be subject to six weeks' disqualification, but having accrued credit in civil life he would have been in the anomalous position that he would have been able to draw benefit, whereas a man in civil life convicted of a similar offence under ordinary civil procedure would have been subject to this disqualification. Therefore in order to put this case on all fours with that of a soldier who has been convicted of an offence we thought it fairer to abolish this anomaly and treat them in the same way as a man who has been convicted of a similar offence whilst serving in the Forces. The Amendment is to remove an anomaly and treats a man convicted of an offence while in the Forces in exactly the same way as a man in civil life.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Lawson

We have no objection to the Amendment, but at the same time we thought the Minister was going to give some consideration to the point we put when the Bill was going through this House. In certain conditions men are going to lose their benefit for six weeks. It is true that the Amendment gives credit and takes into consideration the position of a man in civil life. But why is a man who commits some offence while in the Forces to be treated in an entirely different way from a man in ordinary civil life? If a man in civil life commits an offence he loses his benefit but he can go to the court of referees who may, if they wish, stop his benefit for less than six weeks. That is a condition of which not very much notice is taken by the Chairman of the Court of Referees as a rule but the fact is that it is still the law. Section 27 of the principal Acts says: An insured contributor who loses his employment through his misconduct or who leaves his employment without just cause shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for a period of six weeks or such shorter period as may be determined by the court of referees or the umpire, as the case may be. Why should a man in civil life who commits an offence be deprived of his benefit for a period of less than six weeks but a soldier cannot be deprived of his benefit for a less period than six weeks? I do not see why a man who has left the Service and who commits some offence should not have the same right to go to the court of referees or the umpire and make an appeal as a man in civil life. I drew the attention of the Minister to this point in Committee and I cannot understand why some steps have not been taken to deal with this matter. I take this opportunity of registering my protest, which I am sure would be endorsed by the House generally if there was a free expression of opinion.

At a time when we are giving all the encouragement we can to young men to join the Army, when we are elevating soldiers to the status of citizens and giving them all the freedom that is possible consonant with their service, it seems com- pletely wrong that these men should not have equality of law with men in civilian life before the courts of referees. I am very sorry that the Minister has not taken the opportunity of dealing with this matter. In the form in which the Amendment is drawn, it is very difficult to register a protest on the matter, but the principle involved is one on which I am sure all hon. Members will wish to register their protest, at least in the House, even if they cannot in the Division Lobby.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Hayday

If I understand the Parliamentary Secretary correctly, I must certainly register my protest against what I consider to be the taking away from a person of rights which he at present enjoys. From the point of view of the soldier and his profession, I should have protested had it not been generally accepted that there had been a modification, but that the six weeks' disqualification for the offences mentioned must continue. Nevertheless, if the civilian has already established his claim as a contributor to the fund, surely whatever credits may be standing in his name should fully entitle him, even though the offence be the same, to appear before the court of referees in connection with the civilian rights which he has already established. If that is not the case, I can foresee this dangerous principle being applied more widely.

If this Amendment is passed, a civilian having full credits standing in his name, who commits an offence by fraudulently entering the Army, will be penalised not only in the terms of his enlistment, but will have the six weeks' disqualification applied as far as his civilian rights are concerned. If that is so, what is there to stop the principle from being generally applied, and, in the event of an offence which, under the present Unemployment Act, temporarily disqualifies a man but gives him the right to appear before the court of referees, for it to be said that any misdemeanour, any rebellion against the authority of the factory or workshop or its regulations, will automatically carry with it a six weeks' disqualification? That is the principle of which I am afraid, and I maintain that the rights already established should still stand to the credit of the individual, although the offence committed may be one in relation to his enlistment in the Forces.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Kelly

In addition to the points which have been made by my hon. Friends, there is being carried into the Measure the double penalty that is now being imposed upon people, and the Unemployment Insurance Act is being used as a means of penalising people because they have committed what some people call an offence. The seaman, the marine, the soldier or the airman will be placed in this position. Whether he is sentenced by a court of the Forces or a civil court, in addition to serving that sentence, he is now to be forced to suffer another penalty by being deprived of his benefit for six weeks. A civil court might penalise him for something which is not a criminal offence. Many people are tried in these days for motor offences and in some cases the penalty is that of imprisonment. It may be a monetary penalty. In any case something more will now be imposed in addition to what the court imposes. It is too late now for this matter to be further considered in relation to the Bill but I hope it will be recognised that this proposal is unjust to men in the Services.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

It is difficult to allow this occasion to pass without offering congratulations to the Government on the meticulous care with which their supporters in another place examine these Measures with a view to avoiding the wastage of public money through anomalies. What must happen before this particular anomaly could arise? First, the man would have to be employed in civilian life sufficiently long to enable him to acquire unemployment insurance rights. Then he must either have lost or given up his job in civilian life without first exhausting those rights. That in itself is sufficiently unlikely but when that has happened he has then to serve in the Forces and to commit one or other of these offences. As a penalty for that he is to be compelled to leave the service. When that unlikely combination of four unlikely things has occurred, then the other place carefully say that the man shall not be allowed to profit thereby as compared with another man who is not in the Service.

So anxious are they to prevent any anomaly by which any advantage might be obtained by such a man, that they do not hesitate to create anomalies against him. When all that I have described has occurred, the man as a result of this Amendment will not be placed in the same position as he would have been in had he committed a corresponding offence, not being a member of the Forces. He is in a worse position—slightly but definitely worse. Whereas in civil life the referees would have had discretion as to whether they would impose the maximum penalty or not, in this case another place have taken special care to render the man's position a little worse than it would have been in civil life. They insist that he shall suffer the maximum penalty in every case, whereas had he remained in civil life he may or may not have suffered the maximum penalty. The Government are to be congratulated on the microscopical examination that their Measures get in another place to preserve the public purse, and I would express the hope that some day there may be equal care shown and as exact a precision in the analysis of Government Measures to see that anomalies, of which no doubt there are thousands now, which inure to the advantage of the Treasury and against the interests of the citizen shall be as promptly, carefully, and overwhelmingly secured.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Lords Amendment: In line 16, after Clause 6, insert: