Detention Quarters (Recommendations) (Hansard, 15 December 1943)

§ 25. Mr. Glenvil Hall
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether immediate instructions can be given for the issue of blankets to all men confined in naval detention quarters from the date of their entry in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into detention barracks?

§ The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement at the end of Question time on the Report of the Oliver Committee of Inquiry, in the course of which I will deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Alexander
The Report of the Oliver Committee has been carefully studied, and though certain points require 1530 further investigation, all but one of the Committee's recommendations which affect the Navy have been accepted in principle, and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the action which has been or will be taken on the various items. The difficulty of implementing some of the recommendations at once lies in the shortage of man-power and the necessity for using such manpower as is available more directly in furtherance of the war effort. For example, in order to provide essential instructors in the detention quarters it has been necessary to withdraw some from training establishments with an inevitable loss of efficiency in those establishments. Moreover, we cannot at present afford to employ in detention quarters ratings who are fit for active sea service.
The recommendation which cannot be put into effect as it stands is that men at Canterbury, Portsmouth and Preston should be sent to civil prisons after serving not more than six months in the detention quarters. Imprisonment is higher in the scale of naval punishments than detention and the Naval Discipline Act provides that a man sentenced to detention must serve his sentence in naval detention quarters or military detention barracks. I should be reluctant to promote legislation which would enable a man who had been sentenced to detention to be confined in a civil prison, and I propose therefore, to issue orders recommending courts-martial to award imprisonment in preference to detention when the offender merits a long sentence. Men who are at present serving long sentences at Canterbury, Portsmouth and Preston cannot, as I have explained, be transferred to civil prisons, and for practical reasons to which the Committee have referred in paragraph 16 of their Report, it is not possible to transfer men of this type to establishments where they would be free to mix with the better type of detainee. It is recognized, however, that the routine at Canterbury, Portsmouth and Preston is more rigorous than at other quarters, and while it would be out of the question to reduce all sentences to six months, arrangements will be made which will ensure that no man will normally spend more than twelve months in one of these three establishments.
While the Committee comment on the comparative rigour of the routine in naval 1531 detention quarters, they expressly state that not only has there been no public outcry at all against these establishments, but also they received no allegation of any kind against them and not one of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee in London was a naval man. The Committee do not recommend that the existing routine should be relaxed, but the Admiralty have nevertheless decided that offenders should be allowed bedding from the time of first admission, and be permitted to write and receive letters according to the rules in force hi military detention barracks.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Is my right hon. Friend aware that compared with the statement which was given to the House yesterday what he has now told us is rather disappointing. Are we to have a Debate on the whole question at some convenient time?

§ Mr. Alexander
The question as to a Debate must be put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

§ Mr. Holdsworth
What adequate reason is there for having more rigorous discipline in the Navy detention quarters than in the other two Services? Why should there not be likeness between all three?

§ Mr. Alexander
I am not aware of any very substantial differences after the inquiries we have made, but what I would say to my hon. Friends in the House is that if one considers the exacting conditions in this war in His Majesty's ships and then what conditions we should offer to those who deliberately desert in order not to go to sea, there is something to be said for not making those conditions too easy.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite
Is it not a fact that the proportion of naval ratings sent to detention is very much smaller than the number of soldiers sent to the "glasshouse"?

§ Mr. Alexander
Certainly the numbers are not large. The overwhelming majority of the men in the Royal Navy loyally go to sea in the extraordinarily difficult conditions in this war.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
Will the Admiralty reconsider the decision to send men to civil prisons simply because there is a shortage of staff, which I gather is all that it amounts to?

§ Mr. Alexander
I do not think my hon. Friend has quite understood the answer I have given. Perhaps he will look at it in detail, and, if he wants more information, I will give it him.

§ Sir A. Southby
Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the fact that the Report casts no reflection at all upon the organisation and running of naval detention barracks reflects great credit on the humanity and efficiency of those who have this very difficult task to look after?

§ Mr. Alexander
That is indicated by the fact that no one has made any complaints.

§ Mr. Holdsworth
While I appreciate that no one wants to encourage a man not to do his duty, does not the same thing apply to the other Services? Why should discipline be more rigorous and the conditions worse in naval detention barracks?