HC Deb 08 February 1945 vol 407 cc2213-4
32. Dr. Edith Summerskill

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the case of Mrs. Key, aged 54, of Burslem, who was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment for harbouring her son, an Army deserter; and, as there was evidence that she had endeavoured to persuade him to return to his unit, if he can see his way to remit the remainder of the sentence.

Mr. H. Morrison

My information is that Mrs. Key had been harbouring her son for over three years, from September, 1941, until his arrest as a deserter in January, 1945. I have had inquiry made, following upon representations by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and have reviewed all the circumstances of the case, but I regret that I can find no sufficient grounds to justify me in recommending any remission of the sentence passed by the justices.

Dr. Summerskill

Is it not a fact that this woman endeavoured on many occasions to persuade her son to return, and that he refused to do so; and is she not a highly respectable woman? Surely, she was simply displaying her maternal instincts, which perhaps rather ran away with her reason. Therefore, should not this case be regarded with some compassion?

Mr. Morrison

I believe it is fair to say that this lady did try to persuade her son to go back to his unit, but he was with her for three years, so she does not appear to have been very successful. If I remit this sentence, which I believe is 14 days, I am myself, by administrative action, amending the law. If the law is to be amended, it should be amended by Parliament.

Mr. Woodburn

Does my right hon. Friend not think that this case is analogous to the law which does not require wives and mothers to give evidence against their husbands and sons; and would it not be wise to consider whether the violation of natural feelings should be used as a punishment? Should not the man be punished, instead of the mother, who is being used as a kind of hostage?

Mr. Morrison

That is a perfectly fair point, but it is a question of the law. For the law I am not departmentally answerable—that is a matter for the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Silverman

Why is it that, while this woman has committed an offence by harbouring her son, in her own house presumably, for over three years, nobody knew that he was there all that time?

Mr. Morrison

I have not the least idea.

Mr. Silverman

Could not my right hon. Friend inquire? If the son was in the house for three and a half years, somebody else must have connived at it. Should not that person be blamed, instead of the mother?

Mr. Morrison

She did not inform the authorities, so that of course she must have connived at it.

Mr. Silverman

I said "somebody else."

Mr. McGovern

What do the Government expect the woman to do—denounce her son? Is not this the sort of thing that you condemn families in Germany for doing, under the Gestapo? Would it not have been better for the mother to have sent her boy to hide in the orchard, near London, where the right hon. Gentleman hid during the last war?

Mr. Morrison

I appreciate my hon. Friend's wish, as usual, to be rude. It does not worry me. It is the nature of the law which is involved; and the law is not a matter for me, but for the Secretary of State for War.