HC Deb 15 May 1947 vol 437 cc1829-39

Amendment proposed; In page 14, line 21, after the word "absent," to insert, "without leave or."—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

When the Committee adjourned last Friday we were considering a series of Amendments raising two points of substance. I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I summarised the arguments we were putting forward in regard to those two points. In the First Schedule different treatments are accorded to a man found guilty of desertion and a man undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for absence without leave. Provision is made for the extension of the whole-time service of 12 months by every day on which the man is found guilty of desertion. On the other hand, he can be absent without leave for up to 28 days without his 12 months being extended by that amount. Or he can be absent for a period not exceeding 20 days in prison, or undergoing a sentence, without that counting against him. There is no logical ground whatever for penalising in that respect a man found guilty of desertion, for after all what is the distinction between desertion and absence without leave? It is solely a matter of intention, and on very similar facts courts-martial can come to varying conclusions. We will get the anomaly arising of two cases, almost entirely similar, where one man has been found guilty of absence without leave and does not have his period of whole-time service extended, while the man found guilty of desertion does have the period extended.

The Amendment seeks to ensure that the deserter and the absentee without leave will receive precisely the same treatment. I hoped last Friday afternoon that I had made this point clear, but I fear I did not do so, because the only answer I received was a very surprising statement from the Secretary of State for War, whom I am sorry to see is not present at this moment. He said in seeking to justify this distinction: We think that we ought to draw a distinction between the long service regular soldier who goes absent or deserts and the national service man."-[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th May, 1947: Vol. 437, C. 10421] That was not raised by this Amendment at all, and there is no ground whatever for drawing that distinction. That is an entirely irrelevant observation, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take the earliest opportunity of withdrawing. That is the first point on which I hope I shall have a satisfactory answer. The second is that under the Bill we have various periods of absence from whole-time service which will be entirely disregarded. As the Bill stands—and I know there are Amendments on the Order Paper to which I cannot refer—nothing under 20 days' imprisonment counts, and nothing under 28 days' absence without leave counts. Is there a logical reason for allowing any period of that nature or even a period of 14 days not to count?

One does not want in the one sense to increase penalties. On the other hand, one does not want people to dodge their obligations for this 12 months' whole-time service. One of the dangers I apprehend is the tendency, perhaps, for cases of week-end absence without leave to arise. Supposing a person in such a case reports for duty on the Monday, what is to be done with him? Presumably he will have a minor punishment imposed upon him. Having served his sentence for that, he may go absent without leave the next week-end, and if that sort of thing continues the greater part of the middle of each week may be spent, not in undergoing training, not in benefiting from his whole-time service, but in serving sentences resulting from week-end absences without leave.

I am wondering what the Government propose to do with regard to that category, a difficult category to deal with, of hardened offenders. Indeed, I suggest that a case exists for serious consideration as to whether absence exceeding one day should not be taken into account for the purpose of extending the whole-time service. It may be said, I do not know, that there are administrative reasons which render that highly impracticable, but I am inclined to doubt that, when one bears in mind that at a court martial a record is always produced, not only of the days but of the hours that a man has been absent without leave, and one sees from the provisions of this Bill that a complete record is to be kept of each day that a man is absent as a deserter. It may be said that in one sense this is increasing the penalty of absence without leave or desertion, but really if that sort of conduct is allowed to pass with impunity it will increase the burden on the other members of the unit. One must have regard to them. If a few in a unit make a regular habit of going absent without leave each weekend, apparently with complete impunity, it will cast a heavy burden on the others, and one which they cannot lightly regard. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is to reply, to bear these two particular points in mind: the first, of bringing the deserter and absentee into line; and the second, the extent to which one can disregard the absence in relation to whole-time service.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman)

The hon. and learned Member has made two points, which are quite distinct. His first point is that we should not make any distinction between those convicted of absence without leave and those convicted of desertion. The second point is that there is no excuse in any case for providing what I might describe as a neutral period, as at present provided in the Bill, when a man's absence should not be added on to the other end of his whole-time service. These two points are completely separate, and I will deal with them separately. Since we had a rather ragged Debate last Friday afternoon on these Amendments the Government have looked carefully at the points which were raised, not only by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), but also by a number of other hon. Members opposite.

In regard to the first of the two points which he raised, the distinction between absentees and deserters, I am prepared to concede to him that their treatment should be exactly the same. I want to emphasise, in fairness, that I do not think that is a very great concession, although it is a concession in principle. In fact, the number of occasions where a man is absent for a period of 14 days or less and is then convicted, not of being absent without leave but of being a deserter, will be very rare indeed; but it is possible that such cases will arise and, in fact, I could produce occasions when such cases have arisen. We are prepared to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman on that point. If I may put it in more precise terms, when we get to the Report stage we will move a Government Amendment which will have the effect of saying in paragraph (b, iii) of the First Schedule: … of any continuous period exceeding … a figure to which, in the circumstances I will not refer— … during which he was absent without leave or as a deserter … I think that will meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's first point. That is a concession which I feel it is right to make. I think the Bill will be improved if we make it.

In regard to the second point about the justification for this period in any circumstances, as on Friday afternoon, so now I suggest that a certain amount of confusion has been introduced into these discussions by treating this Schedule as if it had anything to do with sanctions against absence. I would refer particularly to a phrase which was used by the hon. and learned Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) on Friday afternoon, when he pointed out that this had nothing whatever to do with sanctions. I ask the Committee to appreciate this point, which is one of substance. It we want to deter a man from going absent or deserting, we do it by the ordinary process of discipline. If he breaks the law, he is tried and punished, and the gravity or otherwise of his offence is recognised in the punishment he receives.

This Schedule is directed to a totally different problem, which is the purely administrative one of how we can best make use of the time of these National Servicemen during their period of fulltime service. If we can discuss it in that way, I think that probably we shall find agreement. I ask the Committee to accept my advice. The problem with which this Government, or any other Government, is confronted, is how to get the utmost out of the National Serviceman himself and at the same time cause the minimum of administrative trouble to the people who have to look after him. If the Government get a lot of work out of him and at the same time multiply work in the record offices and so on, they are doing themselves more harm than good. We have taken very careful advice in this matter. I must tell the Committee that I am completely satisfied on purely administrative grounds—having regard to what I have said, I make no apology for putting it on administrative grounds—that it is wise to allow a certain period and that this will not in any way affect a man's punishment for any offence he may have committed.

I know that it is unpopular when Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and seek to justify a thing on purely administrative grounds. But this is a purely administrative Schedule and I am entitled to come to the Committee and say that, having regard to the tasks we have to perform, we think that this is the most efficient way of performing them. That is precisely what I say. I have met the hon. and learned Gentleman on his first point. On the second point, I ask him to accept the advice which I give. I have very fully considered all the implications, and I am satisfied that if we seek to make too subtle these provisions, we shall not succeed in achieving that which we wish to achieve. I am quite certain that the Committee will agree with me that, in a matter of this kind, one of the things about which we have to be particularly careful is to see that it is very simple, easily understood, and easy to administer. This Schedule does no injustice, because it is quite irrelevant to the matter of discipline. We want to administer this period of full-time service as efficiently as possible, and I very much hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that advice, and will consider withdrawing the Amendments that he has put down on the Order Paper.

10.15 p.m.

Brigadier Low (Blackpool, North)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question following his very reasonable and clearly stated speech? I am sure that he will be able to give the Committee some satisfaction on the point. He has not really covered the case of the hardened offender, that is, the man who repeats his absence on several occasions. Will he now tell us about him?

Mr. Freeman

I do not think that the Committee need have any fear that the hardened offender is going to get away with it because of this Schedule. I repeat what I said before, that this Schedule has nothing whatever to do with discipline. All that it says is that if a man is absent for a stated period or less, or if he is sentenced and imprisoned for a stated period or less, that period shall not be added on at the end of his service. The hon. and learned Gentleman cited the case of the hardened offender who might go absent every weekend. Of course, that is perfectly true, but I hope that we are not going to build this National Service Bill in terms of hardened offenders. I must say that, whatever law we pass, this Bill will succeed or fail according to the goodwill of the public and according to the sensible administration of it by the Services. But where we get the case of the hardened offender, all that happens is that, on his second or third offence, he will be punished very sharply; he will receive a sentence which is in excess of any period which could be overlooked from the end of his service. There is nothing in this Schedule which will prevent the hardened offender from being dealt with by the full sanction of the law if his commanders decide that that is the proper way to deal with him. There is nothing in it which would weaken the authority of anybody in dealing with the hardened offender.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer (Worthing)

I understand that the Amendment to page 14, line 24, is included in this discussion. The Amendment to which I wish to refer is the one which suggests the leaving out of the word "any" to the end of the line and to insert "day." As we have seen from an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, he has considered, with regard to absence without leave, that 20 days is too long, and has suggested the reduction to 14 days. I suggest that, in a case of detention, 20 days is rather a long time to be not included or to count against a man in any way. I suggest that the period should be reduced to less than 20 days, and I would propose 14 days. We are trying to remedy the whole question of absence without leave, desertion, imprisonment, and to put them on exactly the same basis.

Brigadier Head (Carshalton)

There is one point which still arises in my mind on the question of the hardened offender. I hope, just as much as does the right hon. Gentleman, that there will not be hardened offenders, but the fact remains that, with a Bill of this wideness, such cases are bound to occur. It seems to me that a somewhat novel problem is going to arise here because, normally, when a man has entered one of the Services in the past, he has been there for a considerable time, and has learned from his contemporaries that virtue pays, especially over a long period. If they are to join only for a short period, there may be a certain number of people who will opt for being "a bad boy on a short-term basis." My point is that there may be a man who goes absent for 10 days, or whatever the critical period may be, and has that added on, but the more hardened offender may escape if he is really punished severely, and his period of training may be reduced because, to punish him severely, he must be taken off training. I am worried about the "wise guys" who may have friends some distance away and who go to see them, and discover that however often they do it they can only be punished but cannot have anything added on at the end, because that, I suggest, is the extreme sanction. I am suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should put in some provision whereby a long-continued series of small absences could be added up and, if they go beyond a certain level, could be added on to the end of the service, so as to punish somebody who is constantly absent for short periods and who would otherwise get away with it.

Mr. Freeman

It would be pleasant to reach agreement on this if we possibly can. I will try once again. I think the point is covered, as I think the hon. and gallant Member will see if he will read HANSARD. If we get a recalcitrant soldier who decides to be a "bad boy on a short term basis," we will send him to a reformatory on a long-term basis. That is really the answer. We are allowed to do so under this Schedule, and once we have done that all the horrors the hon. and gallant Gentleman could possibly wish for can be called down on the head of the offender.

Brigadier Head

I do not wish for horrors.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

On the last occasion when this Amendment was discussed I criticised very strongly a statement by the Secretary of State for War which seemed to draw a most undesirable distinction between the penalties to which a Regular soldier is subjected and those applicable to the conscript. As this was reported in the Press, and as I am the last person to want to do any damage to recruiting for the Regular Army, I would like an assurance from the Under-Secretary now—which it is perhaps hardly necessary to ask him for—as to what the Secretary of State meant when he used this phrase: We think that we ought to draw a distinction between the long-service Regular soldier who goes absent or deserts and the National Service man. [HON. MEMBERS: 'Why?'] The reason is that the long service man has undertaken of his own freewill a much more onerous contract. He has enlisted for five years at least, and, there- fore, his is a much more serious case."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1947; Vol. 437, c. 1042.] I hope the hon. Gentleman will say that his right hon. Friend was referring to a purely administrative point in connection with temporary service. It would be most unfortunate if it went out from this Committee that a Regular soldier was to be subjected to harsher treatment than the conscript. Nothing could be more calculated to do mischief to the cause of Regular recruitment than the idea that the Regular soldier was "for it." I am sure that that was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and that he was referring only to this matter in the administrative sense.

Mr. Freeman

I can readily give the noble Lord the assurance he has asked for.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I rise again simply to thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met the two points which have been put forward. I am sure that both sides of the Committee will welcome his decision to reconcile the treatment of deserters with the treatment of absentees without leave. As he said, there is no question of punishing them for their offence. I only wish that we had been met in this way last Friday, because if we had we might have made a little more progress with the Bill. I am reluctant to agree, or disagree, as to the estimated number of cases of desertion which might, or might not, arise. I hope they will be very few. The way in which the hon. Gentleman met the second point appears, at first sight, to be satisfactory. One could wish that we had the time carefully to consider his observations on that point, and that he might have been able to elaborate the administrative argument that induced him to put forward the fairly lengthy period which would not count in assessing the period of whole-time service. However, in view of the way in which we have been met I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman' (Mr. Hubert Beaumont)

It is not possible to ask leave to withdraw, this Amendment, because permission has already been refused.

Colonel Wigg (Dudley)

In defining a day, is my hon. Friend using the definition that is usually applied in the Army, of six hours' absence, or does he mean a period of 24 hours?

Mr. Freeman

I must ask your not certain whether my hon. and gallant Friend's observation is in Order, and whether I am entitled to reply to it now, or later, when we come to the Amendment to leave out paragraph (3).

Mr. Manningham-Buller

On a point of Order. I think I am right in my recollection, Mr. Beaumont, that these Amendments were taken together last Friday, and that this one is, therefore, still under consideration.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Under-Secretary is therefore entitled to reply.

Mr. Freeman

The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend is that we propose to accept the Amendment to leave out paragraph (3). The position that that will leave us in—should any disgruntled soldier wish to take the matter to the High Court to test it—is that the day will be the same for the purpose of military service as for any other form of livelihood.

Captain Marsden (Chertsey)

I have listened with much interest for the last quarter of an hour, and I must ask; what are we talking about? May I remind the Government that sailors desert occasionally, although not as often as soldiers? In the Navy, desertion or absence without leave is a very different thing from desertion or absence from the Army. If a man deserts from the Army, well, he is just one man less. But if a man is absent from a ship which is going to sea it means that some part of the organisation of the ship is lacking, and that the ship will not be so efficient. A man in the Navy is a deserter when he has been absent for seven days, not for 14 or 28 days. On the seventh day his name is given to the police, and he can be apprehended and even made to pay the costs of the police in taking him back to his base, or ship. I find it necessary, from time to time, to remind all these brigadiers to the right and left of me that there is another Service, besides the Army, to be considered. I have not yet heard—I have not been here all the time—a Minister from the Admiralty replying to any of these Amendments or Clauses or Schedules. I hope one may do so before the night is over.

Amendment negatived.