HC Deb 17 February 1955 vol 537 cc652-9
Mr. F. Maclean

I beg to move, in page 82, line 42, to leave out from "court" to "or" in line 43.

I suggest that this Amendment might be taken together with the Amendment to Clause 225 which also stands in the name of my right hon. Friend. Clause 225 defines a civil court as a court of ordinary criminal jurisdiction, and the purposes of the Amendment to Clause 145 is to bring the Clause into line with Clause 225. The need for the Amendment to Clause 225 is to make clear that the references to a civil court do not include any foreign court.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

I should like the Under-Secretary to tell me whether, when a man is sentenced to the "glasshouse" and forfeits his pay, his wife is debarred from receiving her allowance. Is it only the man who suffers, or does the wife also lose her allowance?

Mr. Maclean

I do not think that point arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Fernyhough

That reply is very unsatisfactory. Here we have the case of a man who has committed an offence and been sentenced to a period of detention. While he is under detention he forfeits his pay. That may be proper in the case of the man, but I am concerned with what happens to his wife and children. Are they being penalised as well? Will the wife have to go to the National Assistance Board for help? I think that we are entitled to know.

Mr. A. Henderson

Can the Undersecretary tell the Committee the position regarding the separation allowance?

Mr. Maclean

I still maintain that that has nothing to do with this Amendment. But so far as I know, the position is that though the man forfeits his pay, his family go on receiving the family allowance.

Mr. Fernyhongh

I thought, Major Anstruther-Gray, that you had put the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." It is not enough for the wife to continue to receive the family allowance, because that is something which the Army authorities cannot stop, as they have no jurisdiction over it—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. We have not yet reached the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Amendment agreed to.

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

Mr. Fernyhough

I wish the Undersecretary to give an assurance that the wife of a soldier sentenced to detention does not have her pay withheld.

Mr. F. Maclean

I think that is the position, that the wife gets her allotment although her husband forfeits his pay.

Mr. Ede

Now we have a new word introduced, the word "allotment." In the far-off days when I was in the Army, a man could make a voluntary allotment from his pay which was part of the separation allowance. I joined under the "shilling a day" rule, and one could make an allotment out of that. In fact, a man could so allot his money that he only had 3d. a day left for himself.

Part of that was a voluntary allotment. It was part of his pay which a man could make over to his wife or to some other dependent relative. I always understood that was part of the man's pay, and that when his pay ceased, the allotment ceased. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was choosing his words carefully when he said that the allotment also would continue.

Mr. Maclean

The matter does pot really arise under this Clause at all. It is governed by Regulations. If the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) will communicate with me I shall be glad to go into the details. It is a complicated matter. Certain allowances—I think that is the better word to use—continue for a certain period while the husband is in gaol.

Mr. Fernyhough

If this matter does not arise under this Clause I do not see under what Clause it can be raised. The Clause states: The pay of an officer, warrant officer, noncommissioned officer or soldier of the regular forces may be forfeited… for any day of absence in such circumstances as to constitute an offence…. It is obvious that if a man's pay be forfeited that means his total pay, and if the total be forfeited there is nothing left for the wife. We wish to be assured, not only that the wife receives her marriage allowance, but that she continues to receive it.

The Financial Secretary said that she would receive it for a period, and we wish to know for how long. If a man is sentenced to six months' detention, does the wife's allowance continue for three months? If he is sentenced to 12 months does the allowance continue for six months? For how long does she continue to receive the allowance and what is she expected to do when it stops?

Mr. Simmons

I do not see why this matter does not arise under this Clause, which deals with forfeiture of pay for absence from duty. This is the second time this evening that we have received an answer from the Government benches which sought to deny Parliament's responsibility for the pay and allowances of a soldier.

Earlier we were told, "This is a Royal Prerogative and therefore Parliament has no control over it." It was always my understanding that until we had approved the annual Army Bill we could not raise an Army, let alone pay the soldiers, because we had no right to do so. That was why it was important that every year we should pass an Army Act so as to secure Parliamentary authority for raising an Army and paying the soldiers.

I do not think that those people who are supposed to be experts on military affairs are so expert. We usually see the benches opposite cluttered up with admirals, generals, colonels, majors, and so on, but they have been absent today. Even hon. Members of the officer class upon the Government Front Bench today do not seem to know their business.

We expect a little ignorance of military affairs among hon. Members on this side of the Committee, when so many of us never rose above the rank of private, but we expect superlative intelligence in military matters from hon. Members opposite. They have always been the people who waved the Union Jack and yelled at the tops of their voices about the great and glorious British Empire, upon which the sun shall never set. That is their stock in trade. The Tory Party are the military party—the brains and the intelligence of the General Staff.

8.30 p.m.

Yet, when we ask a simple question about pay and allowances of members of Her Majesty's Forces, we are fobbed off with the statement that this is a matter of the Royal Prerogative and that we have no right to ask any questions about it. I have pointed out that it cannot be a question of the Royal Prerogative, because we have to pass the Army Act every year in order to authorise the raising of money to pay the soldiers. Now we come down to the question of the forfeiture of pay for absence from duty, under Clause 145 of the Army Bill—revised version. It will be the authorised version when it is passed.

The simple question is asked, "What happens to the poor wife and starving children when the soldier's pay is forfeited?"—and nobody knows. The question has stumped hon. Members opposite. Yet they are supposed to be the party of the officers. Upon their Front Bench are now sitting at least three officers of substantial rank. I am sorry that their supporters, who are usually here during these Army debates, are missing. There may be a meeting of the 1922 Committee; anyhow, they are not here.

We should be told what becomes of the wife and the starving children of the man whose pay is forfeited before we pass the Clause in the revised version of this Measure, which will probably go on for another 300 years—as long as the first one did. It may even go on for 500 years, as a tribute to the workmanship of the Select Committee. At any rate, before we pass the Clause we are entitled to know the position.

We know that when a soldier's pay is forfeited the allotment cannot continue to go to the wife and children, because the allotment is part of the pay. The allotment cannot be allotted out of nothing. We should be told whether the wife and children of the soldier whose pay is forfeited will be a charge upon National Assistance, or whether the Army will have any responsibility for them.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

I do not want to stop the debate upon this fascinating question, but I want to mention another point of serious importance. The eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) raises very serious matters, but I should like an explanation from the Undersecretary of State of the odd words in subsection (1, a),namely: The pay of an officer… may be forfeited for any day of absence in such circumstances as to constitute an offence under section thirty-seven or thirty-eight of this Act or, if the Army Council or an officer authorised by them so direct, of other absence without leave… What on earth does that mean?

Apparently there are two sorts of absence without leave. First, there is the absence without leave which constitutes an offence under Clauses 37 or 38, and then there is some other mysterious absence without leave which is constituted by a decision of the Army Council or an officer authorised by them.

This raises an extraordinary situation, because for that specially constituted and defined offence—we know not upon what basis, upon what principle, or for what reason—the unfortunate soldier is also subjected to forfeiture of pay. We must have an explanation of this matter. Either there is absence without leave—and if there is the soldier is liable to proceedings under Clauses 37 and 38—or there is not. I should have thought that the only sort of absence without leave for which he should be deserving of the punishment of forfeiture of pay would be for a properly constituted and proven absence without leave, as an offence under Clauses 37 or 38. Will the Financial Secretary at least tell us the purpose of adding these words "other absence without leave"?

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Before we pass this Clause, I think that we should have some enlightenment from the Lord Advocate. My hon. Friend the Member for J arrow (Mr. Fernyhough) has asked questions of other Ministers, who seem to have been completely mystified by what was really elementary. They ought to know what happens to the dependants of prisoners sentenced by court-martial. It is not an abstruse legal point, like the one on which the Lord Advocate threw light earlier in the debate.

Let me put a concrete case. Supposing a soldier of the Highland Light Infantry or of the Black Watch has been sentenced to military detention, what happens to the allowance of the dependant? Surely, we are entitled to know. If, as my hon. Friend suggested, it might be a case of National Assistance or help from other funds, then it is coming out of State funds, and the local authorities are interested. I therefore ask the Lord Advocate to come once more to the rescue of his colleagues on the Front Bench and to tell us how this Clause affects the Scottish soldier.

Mr. F. Maclean

Perhaps I may deal, first, with the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). The purpose of subsection (1, a) is to give discretionary powers, and it provides that forfeiture in respect of absence should cover not only absence which constitutes the offence of desertion or of absence without leave, but also, in certain cases, where the Army Council or an officer authorised by it so decides in any particular case, an unauthorised absence—for example, when a soldier is sentenced to imprisonment in the Republic of Ireland while on leave there. That is the sort of case we have in mind.

Perhaps I might return to the question of allowances and allotments while a soldier is under detention. It is not quite such a simple matter as some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. In general, the position is as I stated it, namely, that the soldier's pay is forfeited, but that certain allowances and allotments continue to be paid for a period to his dependents. [An Hon. Member: "For how long."] It depends, first of all, whether a soldier is undergoing detention or imprisonment in a military prison or in a civil prison.

If it is in a military prison, then his family continues to receive the marriage allowance and the qualifying allotment for the whole period of his detention or imprisonment, while any voluntary allotment in issue ceases. On the other hand, if the soldier is undergoing imprisonment in a civil prison, the marriage allowance and the qualifying allotment, but not the voluntary allotment, continue in issue to the wife for the first two months of the sentence or to the date of discharge, if that is earlier. I hope that makes the position clear.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

I welcome the explanation of the words at the end of subsection (1, a), and I appreciate that there are circumstances in which there may be absence without leave which is not necessarily an offence under Clauses 37 or 38. Are the circumstances to be set out by the Army Council in the pay warrant or in some published Regulations, or is a completely wide and absolute discretion to be given to the Army Council or the appropriate officer in regard to this matter?

Secondly, has the soldier whose pay is to be forfeited any redress, in respect of that type of absence? If he is tried by court-martial in the ordinary way he has an opportunity of offering an explanation and putting up a defence. For the other type of absence, is he to be tried? Is there a hearing? Has he any means of objecting to forfeiture of pay?

Mr. Willis

Why is there a difference between the results of civilian imprisonment and of detention? Why should the wife of a man who goes to prison be treated more favourably than the other man? There does not seem to be much justification for it.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

We have raised important points. I appreciate that the Select Committee has gone into all these matters, but we too have a duty. I ask for an answer to our reasonable questions. I do not know whether the Minister heard them. I am willing to repeat them, but I hope it will not be necessary to do so.

Mr. Maclean

As I said on that point, the powers are discretionary. They are at the discretion of the Army Council or of the officer authorised by it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, an appropriate moment would be during the Report stage, when we could consider it further.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

If the Minister will bear in mind the observations I have made and the questions I have asked, I promise him that we shall revert to them at the Report stage. We are not satisfied that the pay of the soldier is adequately protected by the Bill.

Mr. Ede

In regard to the offer to deal with the matter at the Report stage, will the Government make certain that they put something on the Paper to raise this issue, as the Report stage is very different from the Committee stage?

Mr. Maclean

We shall certainly have another look at the matter, and if the wording seems not sufficiently clear, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, we shall try to redraft it. On the question of the difference between imprisonment in a military or a civil prison, I would point out that the offences involved are different, and that it is with regard to the military prison or detention barracks that a prisoner's family gets more favourable treatment.

Sir P. Spens

Might I try to deal with the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones)? We were frightfully careful on this question of the forfeiture of pay and went into it with the greatest care. It was obvious from the evidence that there might be exceptional cases where the absence would not be dealt with under Clause 37 or Clause 38. The man himself might to some extent be responsible for a particular absence which was not a military offence.

If my recollection is correct, a general power was suggested, but we were not satisfied with that. We said that the exceptional case must be dealt with directly by the Army Council or by some officer authorised by it, so as to go into the particular case and to make certain that there were grounds on which the man should forfeit the whole or part of his pay. It was to meet these very exceptional cases that we put that recommendation in. I hope that we inserted it in a way that is fair both to the man and to the Army Council.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Clauses 146 and 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.