HC Deb 25 May 1939 vol 347 cc2665-73

Lords Amendment: In page 12, divide Clause 5 into two Clauses, the first to consist of Sub-section (1) and Sub-sections (8) to (12) inclusive, and the second to consist of Sub-sections (2) to (7) inclusive.

11.15 p.m.

1The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)

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

This Amendment deals with the case of men who are called up, and this arrangement is made to make the provisions much simpler.

Mr. Garro Jones

Does not this involve a new and novel principle in drafting? I do not think we have seen an Amendment proposed in this form before and it seems to me it will be impossible for the draftsman to alter all the references in the Clauses and Sub-sections throughout the Bill. It is true that the Government have very fine draftsmen but a draftsman may go wrong in so very complicated a matter, and what safeguard is there that he may not make some mistake which will be discovered only after the Bill is passed? Why should this new departure be undertaken at all? Why split Clause 5 into two Clauses. Is there not a better and more orthodox way of carrying out the proposal?

Mr. E. Brown

The hon. Member will see that the Clause will be much simpler if it is amended in this way.

Mr. Garro Jones

I am asking why this precedent? Is it merely to hurry the Bill on to the Statute Book. There is no reason why the Bill should be passed until after Whitsuntide.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I do not think this is a precedent. There is no other way of expressing what is desired. As regards consequential amendments, I can assure the hon. Member that they will be made.

Mr. Pritt

I do not want to delay matters but this is rather important. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no other way of doing it. I think he underestimates the capacity of the English brain. At any rate, I ask the Government not to do it again.

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 17, leave out "following provisions of this" and insert "provisions of Subsections (2) and (3) of the last foregoing".

11.17 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

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

Mr. Pritt

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question on this Amendment. As I understand the effect of this Amendment it is simply this. As the Clause has been split up Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 will become Sub-section (1) of Clause 6, and then the phrase "subject to the following provisions of this Section" would not be satisfactory and a number of Sub-sections which have ceased to be "the following provisions of this Section" have become the provisions of a Sub-section of an earlier Section. What I am a little anxious about is this: It looks to me as if some of the provisions of the Clause will still be "the following provisions of Section 6," which by this Amendment are taken away from exercising any control over what is going to be Sub-section (1) of Clause 6, and I think might not to be taken away from the control. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the matter has been carefully checked and can be relied upon. If my question is utterly incomprehensible to anybody—even to hon. Members of this House, who are so distinguished in their intelligence—it is not my fault, but is due to the fact that the House is leaving legislation to be done by the draftsmen afterwards.

Mr. Garro Jones

Surely the Minister is going to vouchsafe an answer to my hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has been met to a very large extent by the House, and I think there will be a great deal of further interrogation if he does not give answers.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I can only speak again by leave of the House. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that there is no difficulty about this. In Committee and in the other stages, the Clause gathered accretions in the way of Amendments that were moved from all parts of the House, and the result was that in the Clause the Civil and Service Departments got intermingled. Therefore, it was necessary to separate the Clause, for the sake of clarity, into Sub-sections. I assure the hon. and learned Member that there are no grounds for the apprehensions he expressed.

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 21, at the end, insert new Clause A:—

(Discharge of prisoners claiming to be conscientious objectors.)

"A. (1)—If any person undergoing a term of imprisonment of three months or any greater punishment imposed on him by a court martial in respect of an offence committed while he was undergoing a special course of training which he was required to undergo by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section five of this Act, claims that the offence was committed by reason of his conscientiously objecting to undergoing military training or to obeying any order in respect of which the offence was committed, then he may apply in the prescribed manner to have his case considered by the appellate tribunal constituted under Part II of the Schedule to this Act, and that tribunal shall, whether or not it finds that the offence for which he was sentenced was committed by reason of such a conscientious objection as aforesaid, have power to recommend to the Secretary of State that he be discharged from the army reserve as soon as may be after serving the sentence imposed upon him, but if the tribunal finds that the said offence was not committed by reason of such a conscientious objection it may order him to undergo immediately after his discharge from the army reserve the like training and subject to the like conditions as if he had been a person ordered to comply with the requirements of Sub-section (8) of Section three of this Act so however, that the period for which he is required to undergo such training shall be specified in the order and shall not exceed six months from the date of his discharge from the army reserve.

(2) If any person ordered under this section to undergo such training as aforesaid fails to comply with the order, or while undergoing such training is discharges therefrom for serious and wilful misconduct, he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction thereof to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years."

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

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

This Amendment is in fulfilment of a pledge that the Government made. The House was very much moved by the speeches that were made by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), and in this Clause we have endeavoured to meet the case which they presented. I consulted the hon. Members, through the hon. Member for South Tottenham, and I think they accept this as an honest endeavour to meet the position.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot

I wish to draw attention to one feature of this Clause. In Sub-section (2), it is stated that If any person ordered under this section to undergo such training as aforesaid fails to comply with the order, or while undergoing such training is discharged therefrom for serious and wilful misconduct, he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction thereof to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years. That is to say, courts of summary jurisdiction are to be given power to give imprisonment of two years. That seems to me to be a very remarkable provision. In the ordinary way, courts of summary jurisdiction are empowered only to give imprisonment up to six months. It is an amazing thing that, under the Clause, magistrates—possibly lay magistrates—are to be empowered to impose this very heavy penalty. That was something which was never contemplated by the House when the Clause was under discussion. Certainly, it was not part of any agreement. The position is a little obscure. Will a person who is charged with an offence of this kind be entitled to be tried by a jury? In the ordinary way, any man who is charged with an offence for which a penalty of more than three months' imprisonment can be inflicted is entitled to say that he prefers to be tried on indictment, that is to say, by a jury. Will he have that alternative under the Clause as it stands?

Mr. Hore-Belisha indicated assent.

Mr. Foot

I am glad that is the interpretation placed on this Clause, but, even so, it does not seem to me entirely to meet the objection. Under the Clause, courts of summary jurisdiction, if a man chooses to be tried summarily, will have power to impose this very heavy penalty. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State can point to anything in the Debates in this House which contemplated this particular provision being made.

11.25 P.m.

Mr. Benson

I should like the Secretary of State to consult with the Attorney-General as to the wording of this extraordinary proposal in connection with Clause 27 of the Criminal Justice Bill.

Very strict regulations are laid down in Clause 27 of that Bill as to the sending to prison of anybody under the age of 21 by a court of summary jurisdiction. If in one Measure, we give courts of summary jurisdiction the power to send to prison persons under 21, while in another Measure we seek to make it impossible for them to do so, we shall get into a tangle. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has honestly tried to meet us, but I do not think he has succeeded and I would draw his attention to the desirability of pursuing the same policy in these two Bills which are now passing through Parliament.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Messer

The House should realise that the Government have gone a long way in their effort to meet the points which we raised. I feel that in this life nothing is completely satisfactory and I suppose unless I had had the drafting of the Clause myself, it would not satisfy me. It should be placed on record, however, that the Government have gone very far to meet us, and having regard to the undertaking given I do not desire to offer any further criticism.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Maxton

I think the Minister, in this Clause completely carries out the undertaking that he gave to the House, on the basis of the discussion that took place in the House; at the same time, there is considerable force in the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). While recognising, therefore, that the Minister has carried out the undertaking which was given, I suggest that he ought to consider whether he cannot go a step further, to prevent a man being sentenced for this offence under conditions which would not apply in the case of any of the ordinary crimes. Here it would appear that the conscientious objector, if the court of summary jurisdiction did give him a sentence of two years' imprisonment, would be even more severely treated than the ordinary criminal could be treated under the ordinary law. I am not challenging the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his promise, but I would be grateful if he could go a step further in the direction I have indicated.

Mr. Goldie

If a sentence of two years' imprisonment were passed by a court of summary jurisdiction, surely there would, at once, be an appeal to quarter sessions and quarter sessions would most probably revise the sentence.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Hore-Belisha

I think hon. Members who were interested in the Clause have agreed that the Government have made an honest endeavour to carry out their desire. As the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) says, it is impossible in a case of this kind to make provision which is completely satisfactory, because you are dealing here with a matter of conscience. Here is a man who has been before the tribunal to establish his conscientious objections. He has appealed and he has failed. By mischance he finds himself within the Army. We provide a very special procedure for him. It was suggested in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Tottenham originally, that the man should be liable to imprisonment for two years. That was moved by him in this House as an Amendment. They moved it so as to give an indication of their sincerity that a conscientious objector, finding himself in the Army in these circumstances, would be willing to undergo two years' imprisonment. I have to take them at their word. The two years is only if the man, having got out of the Army and participated in the ordinary training for a conscientious objector, then fails as a conscientious objector to carry out what is required of him. It is in these circumstances that he can be sentenced to a maximum of two years' imprisonment, and he can elect to go before a jury. This is an honest attempt to meet hon. Members and it is a little late to make any further amendment now.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith

I understand the position to be that if a man is sentenced by a military tribunal to two years he would have no right of appeal. These cases have now been brought by this new Clause for a military tribunal to the civil court, for which a man will have a right of appeal and elect to go before a jury. The only thing that alarms us is that it might establish a precedent and that it might be argued at a later date that if the magistrates have power to give two years' hard labour in a quasi-military case, that power should be extended to civilian cases. On the other hand, I appreciate that the man will now have a right of appeal, which he would not have had before.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Silverman

It is only fair to say that the Clause fully carries out the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman gave, and I think he has largely met the points which have been made in this Debate. I have, however, a slight misgiving about the answer he gave as to the right to be tried by jury. This is not in any sense an indictable offence, and it is not made such by this Clause. I would like to be certain about it, because the Clause does not say that the accused person in such a case will have the right to be tried at quarter sessions or in the High Court by a jury.

11.33 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

There are many questions on which we had discussion on this Bill when it was suggested that the penalty should be increased above three months in order to give the right of election to go before a jury.

Mr. Foot

Will the Attorney-General say how many precedents there are for giving courts of summary jurisdiction the power to impose two years' imprisonment?

The Attorney-General

I am afraid I cannot give that information now. There are many cases of six months. I would not like to pledge myself, but I believe there are cases of a greater period.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Pritt

There are certainly not many of these cases where the magistrates can impose longer sentences than six months. Hon. Members will probably recognise that the Government have gone a long way to meet them in this Clause. It is not in every case that a man can claim the right to go before a jury and I am not certain whether in this Bill there is any provision that in these cases he has such a right. In any case, I think a man would probably do better to risk getting even two years from a magistrate than risk going before a jury, who might be more prejudiced than a magistrate in these cases. There is another difficulty, but I do not see any way out of it. Even in the exceptional circumstances of these cases it is a little hard that a man should be liable for imprisonment for two years because somebody else has dismissed him from his job. The Clause refers to a man who— while undergoing such training is discharged therefrom for serious and wilful misconduct. He may have a perfect defence, but if he is in fact discharged on an allegation of serious and wilful misconduct and is then prosecuted and says "I want to put up the defence that I was not guilty of serious and wilful misconduct," the magistrates will be bound to say "That was the ground given for your dismissal and we cannot go behind it." Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman, without delay to insert the word "rightfully" before the word "discharged"?

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Davidson

Many bouquets have been thrown this evening. It is the first time since I have been in this House that the feeling among all parties has been so unanimous. We have seen the return of the right hon. Gentleman who was missing from the Government Lobby on the occasion of the Palestine Debate; we have heard the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) passing a word of praise upon magistrates; and we have heard hon. Members making glowing references to the Government keeping one pledge. It is, I think, a good augury for this Clause, and I hope the Opposition Members will keep a good heart and continue to press their ideas upon the Government, because we can see that with continued pressure some of them at least will be accepted.

Forward to