NAVAL DISCIPLINE (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]. (Hansard, 26 June 1941)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In spite of the somewhat formidable title which this Bill bears, it makes no change in the system of discipline in the Royal Navy, but, as I will show, merely amends the method of administering inquiries into disciplinary offences, to the advantage not only of the Service as a whole, but of the officers charged with offences against the disciplinary code. Hon. Members will be aware that the ordinary method of adjudicating upon such offences is by means of courts-martial, but during the last war a Naval Discipline (Amendment) Act (No. 2) was passed, in 1915, under which the system of disciplinary courts was set up. This amending Act inserted into the Naval Discipline Act, 1866, a new Section, 57a, which gave powers during time of war for the convening of disciplinary courts for the trial of offences of a minor character by officers. The object of that innovation was simply one of convenience. There is no difference whatever between a court-martial and a disciplinary court in so far as procedure is concerned. The difference lies exclusively in the constitution and powers of the court.
Quite rightly, the setting up of a court-martial has always been, and I hope always will be, a somewhat formal affair. The president of a court-martial under Statute has to be an officer of at least the rank of a captain of the Royal Navy. The selection of officers to serve on a court-martial automatically consists of those officers immediately junior to the 1171 president of the court who are present on that particular station. The court has to consist of a minimum of five officers and a maximum of nine. It has to be held on board ship, except in certain exceptional conditions, and at least two of His Majesty's ships must be present in the place where the court is held. The House will readily see that, in present conditions, that may occasion considerable difficulty and considerable inconvenience. On the other hand, the president of a disciplinary court may be an officer of the rank of commander. The court consists of from three to five officers in number. The other members do not have to be automatically selected from the officers immediately junior in rank to the president. As in the case of a court-martial, they must all be executive officers, but they may be drawn from the Royal Navy, the Royal Naval Reserve, or the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and this court may sit in any place where it is directed. Therefore, it will be seen that it is a very much more simple matter to set up a disciplinary court than it is to set up a court-martial, and in these days, when the Fleet is distributed over a large number of stations, stations where there may be only a very few of His Majesty's ships present, and where instant readiness for action is becoming increasingly necessary, it would be a great convenience to the Service to be able to deal with the offences with which it is proposed disciplinary courts shall have power to deal, by a less formal method than that occasioned by the setting up of a court-martial.
Under the amending Act of 1915, it was laid down that a disciplinary court could deal only with certain offences. These offences are enumerated in Sections 17 to 43 of the Naval Discipline Act. They include such offences as disobedience, using violent language to a superior officer, quarrelling, desertion, improperly leaving one's ship or place of duty, absence without leave, drunkenness, swearing and acts prejudicial to naval discipline. For these ofiences the disciplinary courts can award sentences ranging to dismissal from the Service, but such courts cannot pass a sentence of death, penal servitude, dismissal with disgrace, or imprisonment with detention. The change, which it is proposed to introduce as a result of this Bill, is to include 1172 among the offences, which under the present law can be dealt with by a disciplinary court, those offences which fall within Section 9 of the Naval Discipline Act. If hon. Members have a copy of the Act by them, they will see that Section 9 reads as follows: Every person subject to this Act who shall desert his post or sleep upon his watch or negligently perform his duties shall be dismissed from His Majesty's Service with disgrace … The trial of these particular offences, which to-day cannot be tried by a disciplinary court, we wish to include among the powers of that type of court. The reason for the proposed change is that there have been certain cases during the present war in which small craft, in charge of a junior officer, have been either hazarded, or in some cases lost, through the negligence of their commanding officers. To convene a court-martial as we have to do now in order to deal with these offences, occasions considerable delay which is of advantage neither to the Navy as a whole, nor to the officer who is charged with the offence. Therefore, the opinion is widely held in the Service that this is a departure which should be made forthwith. The question of whether such an offence, or such an officer charged with that offence, should be tried by a court-martial, or by a disciplinary court, would be a matter for the discretion of the commander-in-chief or of the flag officer closely concerned. I think it is obvious that a senior officer of that kind, if he felt that the case was one of a sufficiently serious nature, would at once order that a court-martial should be convened rather than a disciplinary court
Hon. Members may ask whether the same procedure will apply to cases in which ratings are concerned. This amending Pill will not concern the trial of ratings, because other provisions already exist under Section 56 of the Act to deal summarily with offences by naval ratings, through the powers exercised by the captain of a ship. Here again, if the offence were of a sufficiently serious nature, the officer would see that the offender had the advantage of a trial. As was the case under the Act in 1915, disciplinary courts can be held or set up only in times of war, and, of course, the same applies to the extension of the powers which we are seeking in this Bill. I think I have covered all the ground 1173 which is relevant to this very short amending Bill, but if hon. Members wish to ask any questions I shall be only too happy to reply to them.

§ Mr. Ammon (Camberwell, North)
There is very little about which one wishes to ask arising out of this Measure. In fact, the only question which occurred to me has already been answered by the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that ratings were excluded from the provisions of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to "present conditions," "these days" and so on. I take it that means that this is a war-time Measure which will cease to exist, as and when we return to normal conditions.

§ Sir V. Warrender
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Ammon
Actually the Bill simply seeks to transfer categories of offences now tried by courts-martial to these disciplinary courts. That seems to me to be somewhat invalidated when the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is left with the commanding officer to determine whether or not there shall be a court-martial. I understand that the disciplinary courts can be composed of officers of the Volunteer Reserve, that is to say those who are not regularly attached to the Navy. Does that mean they will have authority to bring to trial commissioned officers who are employed permanently in the Navy? I think it would be worth while if we had an answer on that point.

§ Sir V. Warrender
I think the answer to the last question is that that would be so. I purposely said that whether or not a particular offence should be dealt with by a disciplinary court would be left to the discretion, either of the flag officer in charge, or the commander-in-chief of the command in which the offence took place. I have no doubt whatever, although the offence may, technically, have been a comparatively minor one, that if it seemed to be serious to a responsible officer of that rank he would certainly see that the officer concerned would have the advantage of having his case tried by a court-martial. It has happened that small craft have been lost as a result. 1174 not of any tremendous crime, but perhaps through inexperience and some minor negligence. In this case, it has been thought unnecessary to go through the elaborate procedure of a court-martial, and by this method we shall be able to deal with a case like that expeditiously and with justice both to the service and the individual concerned.

§ Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)
I rise only for the purpose of asking whether this Measure can be regarded as of extreme urgency, because if not, it seems to me undesirable to depart from the usual Parliamentary practice of allowing an interval between the Second Reading and Committee stage which gives hon. Members an opportunity of putting down Amendments. I think we should retain the usual practice unless, of course, we are told by the Government the matter is very urgent. It is a little difficult in present circumstances, to see how it can be urgent, but I merely ask the Minister to be good enough to give us an explanation.

§ Sir V. Warrender
I understand it will be greatly to the convenience of those responsible to get the Bill through all its stages to-day so as to get it on the Statute Book at an early date.

§ Mr. Mander
In the circumstances I raise no further objection to taking the Committee stage now, but I hope the Government will note the point that I have made of allowing an interval wherever possible.