HC Deb 13 February 1948 vol 447 cc746-55
Mr. Shinwell

I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, after the first "as," to insert, "or as having been."

This is a drafting Amendment, and seeks to safeguard the interests of women who have served, are serving, or will serve in any of the Services. The male members of the Services are entitled to certain benefits which apply equally to those who have already rendered service. It is proposed, in order to avoid any ambiguity, that this Amendment should be included in the Bill, so as to provide equal benefits for women members of the Services.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, at the end, to insert: Provided that no Court Martial shall impose a sentence on women of imprisonment in a Military Prison or Detention Barracks. I suppose that we shall now have to call these barracks, if they are to be established, "Women's Royal Detention Barracks." My purpose by this Amendment is to clear up the ambiguity following last week's Debate. On that occasion, there was disquiet expressed about the possibility of women being tried by court martial and being sent to a military prison or detention barracks. I realise that the Secretary of State for War was in a more amenable mood then, but I hope that we shall get some satisfaction with this Amendment. I want it to be made perfectly clear in this Bill that no woman shall be liable to be sent to a military prison or to a detention barracks.

I accept what the Secretary of State for War said last week, that there is no question of sending women to the "glasshouse." I am very glad to hear that, because there has been a tendency in recent times to whitewash the "glass house," which remains substantially what it was in the 1914–18 war—it is about the biggest possible hell on earth. I want the Minister to give effect to the spirit of his reply last week, and to make definite provision that no woman shall be subjected to the sort of military discipline that men have had to undergo in the past two wars.

Mr. Shinwell

I cannot agree to insert these words, but it may be possible for me to satisfy my hon. Friend if I make a brief explanation amplifying what I said On this subject last week. When women become members of either the Army or the Air Force, they will be liable to be tried by court martial, in the same circumstances as soldiers and airmen, according to the Acts which govern discipline. Hon. Members will recall that I also said that courts martial would no doubt pay regard to sex in considering any sentences to detention. The building of special detention barracks for women is not contemplated. In our judgment there is no need for such barracks, at any rate for the time being.

There is no intention to convert any existing barracks or any part of them for women. In the absence of separate detention barracks for women, any woman who is sentenced by court martial will serve the sentence in the barrack detention room at her station, or in the absence of that in the detention room at a nearby station. It is hoped to issue administrative instructions so that sentences are not awarded of too great a length. We can hardly provide the kind of accommodation which would justify the serving of long sentences. Imprisonment for more serious offences will have to be served in a civil prison. May I add—as I did not have an opportunity of saying anything on this point on the Second Reading—that when a woman is being tried the court martial will contain one woman member, and a woman can be present at the court martial.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

A woman officer?

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

Not necessarily, but it will be a woman. In any event, it is another point; if my hon. Friend objects to the personnel of the court martial he can raise it when we come to the Estimates. A court martial trying a man can include a woman as a member, but she ought not to preside. That is the general position.

Some time ago there was set up the Lewis Committee, to consider procedure in connection with courts martial, sentences and forms of punishment, and, no doubt, when they report—I cannot anticipate their recommendations—they will indicate what, in their judgment, are the most suitable forms of punishment which are appropriate to women, and which may make it unnecessary to provide for periods of detention. For instance, instead of imposing a sentence of imprisonment, or detention, a woman might be fined. A sanction of that sort may provide as useful a deterrent as sending the woman to a detention barracks, or to a civil prison. I imagine that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with what I have said. At any rate, our intentions are to deal with women appropriately, having regard to their sex and the conditions of their service. I hope my hon. Friend will not ask me to insert his proposed words in the Clause.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Gage (Belfast, South)

Before we part with this Clause there are some questions which I should like to address to the Secretary of State. On the Second Reading, I expressed certain misgivings about the application of the Army Act to the Women's Services. I believe that application of the Air Force Act would probably operate similarly because it is a similar Act. In this Clause, it is proposed to make certain modifications and adaptations of the Acts in so far as they apply to the Women's Services, and I would like some enlightenment as to what those modifications and adaptations may be. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are many parts of the Army Act which are entirely inappropriate to the Women's Services. He has only to look at Section 4, where he will see that anyone who: Shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, or tools in the presence of the enemy commits a very serious offence for which the punishment may be death. That cannot possibly be meant to apply to the Women's Services. But some other Sections may apply. For instance, under Section 6 an offence is committed: By discharging firearms, drawing swords, beating drums, making signals, using words, or by any means whatsoever negligently occasions false alarms in action, on the march, in the field, and elsewhere. That is a very wide section. Section 6 also states that an offence is committed by anyone who: irregularly detains or appropriates to his own Corps, battalion or detachment any provisions or goods proceeding to any such force as aforesaid— that is the Army, or a force co-operating with it— contrary to any order issued in that respect. The same provisions should not apply to any of the Women's Forces. Is it the case that the only provisions of the Army Act which are to apply are those which applied during the war—Section 15 and Section 40?

If Section 40 is to apply I would ask for enlightenment on a problem which troubled those who were faced with it during the war. It frequently happened that a member of the Women's Forces did not do as she was told. To cover that there was an appropriate Section relating to disobedience of a lawful command. An officer would say, "Can this girl be punished under that Section?" and the answer was, "No." But Section 40 looked as though it would apply, because it related to conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, and covered practically anything from rape to being late on parade. The difficulty always arose—and I am sure it is still there—over the proviso, which states: No person shall be charged under this section in respect of any offence for which special provision is made in another section of this Act. There was, therefore, great difficulty in charging the girls at all, so the whole business was rendered nugatory. These legal difficulties constantly cropped up, and the effect was that the Army Act was practically of no assistance at all in its application to the A.T.S., modified or adapted as it was then. It is therefore important to know how the Government intend to modify or adapt the Act now.

The upper limit of punishment for the A.T.S. was reduced from death to 14 days' confinement to barracks—which was a drastic reduction. I am reminded of the case of the junior member of a court-martial who, when asked by the senior member what he thought the sentence should be, replied "14 days' C.B., Sir," whereupon the senior member said, "Don't you realise that the maximum sentence for this offence is death?" The unfortunate junior officer then replied, "Well, Sir, then let it be death." It was a somewhat drastic reduction, and led to most extraordinary results when a girl absented herself. If she was a persistent absentee a long-suffering officer would eventually say that she would have to be tried. Officers would be brought from important work to the court-martial and the girl would get 14 days' C.B. If she was serving abroad, away from British jurisdiction, and committed a murder, all that could be done was to try her by court-martial and give her 14 days' C.B. If the Army Act had not applied, and the girl had been a camp follower, she could have been tried under Section 41 and, if convicted, appropriately punished.

In other words the application of the Army Act in cases like that had completely the opposite effect to what was intended. These are all problems which, I am sure, the Government has carefully considered. I should, however, be glad to know how they intend to apply this rigorous code of military discipline to a Women's Force, and how they intend to modify it so as to make it fit in with the discipline appropriate to that force.

Brigadier Head

I support the very pertinent suggestions and remarks made by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage). It seems to me not unnatural that the Government, anxious to get this Bill through, should have inserted this Clause which, in effect, says, "We will get the Bill through, and think again regarding the details, particularly in relation to Clause 3 (2)." I hope that the Minister will give some assurance as to his future intentions regarding these Orders in Council. Subsection (2) states: His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for adaptations and modifications of enactments appearing to him to be requisite in consequence of the preceding provisions of this Act or of things done there under. Undoubtedly, the Ministers concerned will find certain matters which will need Orders in Council as experience in this matter proceeds, but I think that it would be most disastrous and difficult for those responsible for the administration suggested in the Bill if it were not the Government's long-term intention to consolidate these Orders in Council and bring them into the Act.

I know from personal experience of the Army Act how difficult it is to deal with all the amendments and Orders in Council, and for anyone taking proceedings it is like setting out on a paper chase. The whole matter becomes extremely complicated and difficult, and, eventually, inoperable. I feel that we on this side of the House will be opposed to this Clause unless we get a definite and categorical assurance from the Minister that it is his long-term intention to bring all these Orders in Council together and incorporate them in a tidy manner within the Act.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I do not think that the Minister has realised exactly what is contained in this Clause. Hon. Members have pointed out certain anomalies from the point of view of those whose duty it has been to sit on courts martial. I want to put the point of view of people who have been before courts martial. The Secretary of State for War is now in a jam, because he has committed himself against what is called the detention barracks and glasshouse. I would like to know how he is to get out of his difficulty. His suggestion that the courts should send women offenders to civil prisons and into hard labour is merely transferring the problem to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I submit that in attempting to enforce discipline on the women he will have to reconsider the Army Act.

There has been no argument in reply to the suggestion made last week that the best plan would be to remove the question of discipline out of this Act altogether and apply the same principle as the Navy. If they do not require courts martial and harsh military discipline to get order and discipline in the W.R.N.S., why is it required in the A.T.S. and Women's Air Service? I know that the Minister's intentions are good, and I believe that he is thoroughly democratic in his Bill, but I suggest that he does not realise what he is in for when he is wandering about this bog of military discipline.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell

So far we appear to have reached agreement on the main principle underlying the Bill, which is that in the Army and in the Royal Air Force the women members should be integrated with the male members of those Services. So far so good; but having accepted that principle, clearly another principle must be established: That, in the circumstances of such integration, broadly speaking, similar codes of discipline should apply to both men and women. But as was pointed out on Second Reading, and as I have already said in the Committee proceedings on a previous Amendment, we give the assurance to the Committee that the enactments relating to the provision of discipline will be administered having regard to the matter of sex. I agree that that is a matter of administration. Indeed, in the nature of the case it must be so. It is quite impossible to insert in a Bill of this character precise details indicating the variations in punishment as between men and women. I think that hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate, including the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage), who has a great knowledge of these matters, will agree with me.

I come to the criticism that has been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), and, to some extent, by my hon. Friends that we are in doubt as to how discipline shall be administered in the future. In fact, both the War Office and the Air Ministry have reviewed all the statutes relating to these matters. All the statutes known to be affected by the first part of the Clause now under discussion have been carefully reviewed, without, as may have been anticipated, and, indeed, as the hon. and gallant Member appeared to anticipate, disclosing any statute that cannot be properly applied to women. On the other hand, and this is an admission that I am bound to make, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that, as a result of experience, it may he necessary to limit or modify the operation of a particular statute relating to members of the Women's Service. We have to consider this matter in the light of experience and adapt the administration accordingly.

The only point that remains, and it is familiar to hon. Members because it has cropped up over and over again in our discussions, is whether we should leave the administration to be evoked as a result of Orders in Council. On that, I have to acquaint the Committee with certain facts. Our proposal is to proceed by Orders in Council if necessary. They may not be necessary, but, in the process of such adaptation as may be necessary, we may require to evoke Orders in Council. If that is so, procedure by Order in Council will follow the existing procedure under which discretion to amend the Army and Air Force Acts for application to the Women's Services is delegated to the Army and Air Councils, under Defence Regulations and under Section 176A of those Acts.

The remarkable fact which I will now disclose is that such amendments can be carried out by instructions which are not subject to Parliamentary control. What we are now proposing is that rather than leave it entirely to the decision of the Army Council or the Air Council, these necessary adaptations, in so far as they require Orders in Council, should be subject to affirmative Resolution by both Houses. I imagine that is a considerable advance, and a concession of which hon. Members should fully avail themselves.

As to the kind of amendment which might arise, or the kind of adaptation which may be necessary, as I have already said, it is not easy to specify precisely the nature of these details, but I will give an example. The amendments which are contemplated are largely of a technical and routine nature; for example, the amendment of the word "widow" to read "widower." On the whole, therefore, we consider that it is better to get the principle agreed on the basis of a short Bill of this character, rather than encumber and prolong the Bill unnecessarily with details of this kind.

I hope with that explanation that hon. Members will feel not only that our intentions are honourable, but that we have adopted the best procedure for dealing with a very complicated matter. At the same time, I am extremely obliged to those hon. Members who have considerable knowledge of this subject for having enlightened us, and no doubt the points which they have raised will be carefully scrutinised.

Earl Winterton

I do not think one could take exception to what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. It is only fair to say, not in criticism but in extension of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage), that if we are looking for anomalies in the law we need not look at the Army Act. There are thousands of Acts on the statute book which contain anomalies, and anything more fatuous than many of the Acts applicable to civilians it would be hard to imagine.

In many respects I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are in a stronger position vis-à-vis this matter, than we are in respect of the ordinary law. The only suggestion I would make is that the matter requires immediate action. Immediate consideration should be given to the Army Act to see what portions of it need amendment in view of the existence of the Women's Services. Not only do I disagree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I also disagree with what I understand to be the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast that this corps should not be under military discipline.

Mr. Gage

I did not by any means intend to imply that this corps should not be under military discipline. What I said was that I thought the Army Act was not the appropriate method of enforcing discipline.

Earl Winterton

I am sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend It is far better to do it through the medium of the Army Act. I can think of nothing more complicated than two Acts, one dealing with the Men's Services and the other with the Women's Services. That would increase the confusion which, as my hon. Friend says, exists already. The simple answer to anyone who objects to this procedure is that there will have to be an affirmative Resolution. I hope the earliest consideration will be given to this matter so that the procedure shall be brought up to date.

Mr. Shinwell

I can give that assurance at once. Naturally, we shall closely scrutinise these enactments to prepare the way for any adaptations which may subsequently be regarded as necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.