NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act s. 54.) (Hansard, 9 April 1948)

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause has been put down by my hon. Friends and myself for the purpose of raising a question which is of very considerable importance, though I hope it will be dealt with satisfactorily in the report of the Lewis Committee. Unfortunately, we have not seen that report before discussing the details of this Bill, 542 with the result that no amendment recommended by that committee can possibly be incorporated in the Army Act until another year has elapsed.
One hears continually complaints and criticisms about the delay occurring between trial by court martial, and confirmation and promulgation of sentence. Very often a man is placed under arrest for a considerable time while awaiting trial, while a thorough investigation is being made into the charges against him, and while efforts are being made to secure evidence. In addition, there very often occurs a delay of a long period after trial and conviction. I would admit and agree that in some cases such delay is difficult to avoid; where, for instance, the court martial has taken place overseas and the papers have to be sent home for advice before confirmation. But that delay ought to be cut down to the narrowest possible limit. The other day I received a letter in which complaint was made of a delay of four months between conviction and confirmation.
We have put down this new Clause because only by tabling a new Clause could we raise this matter. It is not with a view to pressing for its inclusion in the Measure, because that might conflict with what one wishes to do after reading the committee's report. It is to emphasise the importance which we attach to speed in this matter and in the hope of obtaining, for once, a really satisfactory assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that every effort will be made to speed up every case.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
The hon. and learned Member may be assured that we are entirely in favour of reducing the gap in time between sentence and confirmation to the narrowest possible limit, that we are taking administrative steps to that end and that it is unusual for delay to be of the nature described by him. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had had brought to his notice quite recently a case where a period of delay of four months had occurred. We should be very glad to look into the details of that particular case, because my advice is that it must be almost unique for a case to occur where there is a period of delay of more than three months. In the very great majority of cases the period is only about a week.
543 One reason why we should hesitate to accept this Clause is that, if it were put in the statute, a limit of three months—

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not asking that this Clause shall be put into the Bill.

§ Mr. Stewart
I will not press that point. I would say again that the usual period is a week, and the case such as that mentioned by the hon. and learned Member must be unique and we shall be glad to look into it. Where delay does occur it is very often to safeguard the interests of the convicted person. It may be that the trial took place in an overseas command and it is desirable to refer the matter home for the elucidation of some point of law. I think it would be unwise, therefore, to impose a more rigid time-limit, particularly when, as the hon. and learned Member himself pointed out, we are awaiting the report of the Lewis Committee, and it would not be appropriate to make alterations of this kind now. The hon. and learned Member may be assured that, by putting down this Clause, he and his hon. Friends have served their purpose of reminding us once again of the desirability of avoiding any undue delay in these cases.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller
In view of that assurance, which, remarkable though it may be, I regard as entirely satisfactory, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

§ Earl Winterton
I rise only for the purpose of calling attention to the tolerant, fair-minded and reasonable Opposition which we have in this House. That is shown by the fact that we have let this Bill go through in such a short time. I 544 recall that on one occasion the Opposition of which I was a Member kept the Committee from four in the afternoon until six the next day. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise how reasonable we are.

§ Mr. M. Stewart
I am too taken aback by this sudden assault to be ready with a completely appropriate reply. It was suggested earlier that the martial spirit of soldiers could perhaps be kept up in time of peace partly by their waging a continual campaign against the War Office. Possibly, also, they may derive some example of martial and combative vigour from the behaviour of hon. Members when considering this Bill. It would be ungracious of me not to say in reply to the noble Lord that, while we have not accepted all the strictures that have been passed on us in the course of this Debate, we are fully aware of the desire of hon. Members on both sides of the House to see that the Debate on this Bill is used for the improvement of all matters with which the welfare of the Army is concerned.