§ 61. Mr. Bowlesasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, where a naval rating offends against the customs duty on imports of, for instance, stockings, which he was bringing home as a present for his near relatives, and he is punished by having the stockings confiscated, he is also punished by his commanding officer with loss of leave.
§ The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander)The law provides that goods which any person attempts to smuggle shall be forfeited. The offender is also liable to prosecution and, on conviction, to the prescribed penalties. 224 Naval offenders are not of course exempt from prosecution in the civil courts, but in practice they are dealt with by the naval authorities under the Naval Discipline Act. Apart from this they are in the same position as civilians.
§ Mr. BowlesMay I ask my right hon. Friend the same question that I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week? Here is a naval rating who has been away for 2½ years and saved £8 to buy some stockings for his close female relatives, and he can be punished by two Government Departments. Surely one punishment is enough. Will not my right hon. Friend exercise that quality of mercy for which he is well known?
§ Mr. AlexanderI think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the position as regards the forfeiture of goods by a naval rating who commits an offence against the law. He is not proceeded against by the civil authorities, but is dealt with in a disciplinary way by the naval authorities, and I should have thought that, in view of the fact that he might be liable to heavy fines and imprisonment under the civil law, he has not been very harshly dealt with. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, and would like me to look into it, I will.
§ Mr. BowlesI have a case in mind, but, in view of the fact that the civil authorities, namely, the Treasury, took what proceedings they thought necessary and confiscated the stockings, may I ask my right hon. Friend, as head of the Admiralty, to waive the extra punishment which this man has had to undergo?
§ Mr. AlexanderI am sure that my hon. Friend will accept the view that you cannot judge a general issue upon a particular case. If we are weak in dealing with an offence against the law, we may find that it becomes widespread, and unless some action is taken in support of the law, quite apart from mere forfeiture of a pair of stockings, we may get a serious deterioration. I would not like to make any commitment to my hon. Friend on the general principle now.
§ Mr. John DugdaleWill the right hon. Gentleman express to the Chancellor of the Exchequer his displeasure at this mean and tiresome tax being imposed?
§ Mr. AlexanderNo, Sir.