HC Deb 02 May 1957 vol 569 cc425-34
Mr. Steele

I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, to leave out "whether."

It may be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Gordon, if I also deal with the two following Amendments—that in line 32, to leave out "or not." and in line 34, at the end to add:

(3) Every person subject to this Act who is drunk, whether on duty or not, shall be liable to forfeiture of seniority for a specified term or otherwise or any less punishment authorised by this Act.

The Chairman

I think that that will be for the convenience of the Committee.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Steele

This is an interesting Clause, and I am sure that the officers and ratings in the Navy will have observed that what it deals with sometimes happens. Whether the officers and ratings are ever charged with this offence or not is another matter. This Clause is rather different from the Section in the previous Act, and for the first time we get a definition of drunkenness. It would be interesting to look at the definition in the Clause. It states that a person is drunk within the meaning of the Clause, first, if he is unfit to be entrusted with his duty", secondly, with any duty which he might be called upon to perform, thirdly, if he behaves in a disorderly manner ", or, fourthly, if he behaves in a manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty's service. So it is not necessary that the rating or the officer—as this applies to all the men in the Service—should be guilty of all those four things. He can be drunk within the meaning of the Bill if he is, by reason of the influence of alcohol, in any of the four conditions mentioned.

All of us will agree that the first two conditions are very serious. Where a man, owing to the influence of alcohol, is unfit to be entrusted with his duty it is only right that the penalty, as called for in the Act, should be imposed. There is some difficulty about the second definition—any duty which "he might be called upon" to perform. I can understand and appreciate the problem which arises there but, at the same time, it does not seem to me to be so grave as the first condition. The remaining two—behaving in a disorderly manner or in a manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty's Service —cover cases resembling that of the person who in civilian life might be taken up on a drunk and disorderly charge; but, of course, there is a grave distinction in the penalty as between the Service offence and the civilian offence.

First, what the Amendment proposes to do is to try to make a distinction between the person who is on duty yet not on duty. For instance, we can visualise that a rating might come on board and, having had a rather merry evening, be under the influence of alcohol to a certain extent. if he is to be brought round to undertake a duty, he might have a bucket of cold water thrown upon him, and he might then become quite disorderly. In such circumstances I think it is rather a grave matter if the liability is a sentence of two years' imprisonment. It is true, of course, that there is a lesser penalty which could be imposed, but I think it is wrong to leave to the officer the taking into account of all that, and that a distinction should he drawn in this way.

If it is said that it is essential to retain this punishment, we can also say that in a case where a man was acting in such a disorderly manner that this penalty would not be sufficient, there is still Clause 39 to turn to, under which the rating or the officer could be charged and a greater penalty would be imposed.

We fear that this Clause is so widely drawn that if an officer or a rating is drunk, whether on duty or not, or whether in uniform or not, the mere fact that he is under the influence of alcohol means that he can be charged under this Clause. It is too widely drawn in that way and I should like to know what is the intention of the Admiralty in this matter. My hon. Friends and I press our Amendments, which we think would make the position much more satisfactory.

Mr. Soames

This is largely a question of how much can be written into the Bill and whether we will not detract from its benefits by stating things too categorically. I assure the Committee at once that there would be no question of a man returning from leave, drunk for the first time, being given the maximum punishment under the Clause. Here again, there are the Regulations which support the Act. I will read No. 1977 to the Committee: For a first offence of returning from leave drunk men below leading rating are not to receive any punishment other than the mulct of pay of one day. It adds that their grog may be stopped. That is the only punishment which a man would get for returning from leave drunk.

To revert to what I think is the spirit behind this Amendment. of differentiating between whether a man is on duty or not on duty, while it might be possible to state that beyond all shadow of doubt both in the Army and in the Air Force, for the Navy it is impossible to say whether a man is on duty or not. In a sense, all men in a ship, when it is at sea, could be considered to be on duty for twenty-four hours a day. On the other hand that is evidently impossible. for men must sleep;so it is not possible definitely to state that a man is off duty or on duty. If we were to have it written into the Bill and were to limit the scope which would be given to a commanding officer to judge, it would be sometimes difficult to differentiate and to decide whether a man was on or off duty.

Obviously, the offence is much less severe if he is not on duty than if he is on duty. I do not think there have ever been any cases of ratings complaining that they were being persecuted by the punishments given to them for drunkenness. There is an extra point that in the case of an officer, for instance, who is constantly getting drunk when on leave and coming back drunk, or constantly getting drunk ashore but is sober on duty, it would be necessary to include dismissal for that officer. Under the Amendment that would not be so.

Mr. Steele

It could be done under Clause 36, which deals with scandalous conduct of officers.

Mr. Soames

This is a particular offence of drunkenness. I do not want to return to the old Section "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" unless it is necessary so to do. This is the Clause in which this particular offence of drunkenness is being laid down. It would be a pity to include officers, thought to be guilty of drunkenness, under another Clause, and leave this Clause amended, as is suggested.

There are two main difficulties, the biggest of which is that in many circumstances it is almost impossible to state whether a man is or is not on duty. We must leave it to the good sense of the Officer or officers concerned to judge. Obviously, the lesser punishment will be given to a man whose drunkenness does not affect the safety of his shipmates compared with that given to a man whose drunkenness does affect the safety of his shipmates. That, in fact, is the practice, and it is laid down in the Regulations that a man coming back drunk from leave for the first time can be punished only by a mulct of one day's pay. I suggest to the Committee that this works well in practice, and although I respect and understand the motive behind the Amendment, it would be difficult to implement it in practice.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

Looking at the Clause after we had drafted the Bill, it struck me that it was exceedingly wide, much wider than I thought it was at the time. I cannot help feeling that what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has said has a certain amount of justification. I am not satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's explanation about not being able to alter it. If a rating or officer is ashore, in a shore establishment, it is quite easy to establish whether he is on duty or not. If it is easy to establish that in the other Forces, it is easy to establish it in the Navy.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the difficulty really arises when the officer or rating is aboard a ship. Surely that factor could have been covered. Surely something could be done to provide that every person subject to the Bill who was drunk on duty or aboard a ship would be liable to imprisonment and so on. The other cases could have been dealt with either by Clause 36 or by Clause 39. It seems to be appropriate that the person returning from leave drunk should be dealt with under Clause 39. At present, if a person is drunk ashore, on leave, he is covered by Clause 28 (2). It would be more appropriate for him to be covered by Clause 39. It appears to me that that could be done without a great deal of difficulty merely by changing the wording of subsection (2) of the Clause.

Mr. Soames

Clause 39 specifically says: Every person subject to this Act who is guilty of any act, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline not described in the foregoing provisions of this Act… Drunkenness is described in the foregoing provisions.

Mr. Willis

Drunkenness ashore is described "in the foregoing provisions" as the Clause now stands, if the wording were changed as I suggest, it would not then be covered by the foregoing provisions and would automatically fall to be considered under Clause 39, which seems a more appropriate Clause for dealing with such an offence than this strict Clause 28 (2).

As the Clause stands, it appears that the Navy is certainly being far more severe with this penalty than the other Services. Because of regulations issued by the Admiralty, that might not be so. We do not know;we have heard only one of those regulations read by the hon. Gentleman. The Clause gives that impression; and it would not be difficult to alter the wording to bring the Clause more into line with the provisions applying to the Army and the Air Force so that the position of each Service would appear to be very much the same.

6.30 p.m.

One admits the difficulty about people aboard a ship and the difficulty of defining when a person is on duty aboard a ship. I should have thought that at sea a person was always on duty. I do not think there is any doubt about that, but it could have been covered under the proposed subsection (3) embracing all the other forms or occasions of drunkenness while ashore, or on leave, or something like that, which at present are included in the Clause.

The Government ought really to look at this matter again, to see whether some alternative wording cannot be found to make it apparent that the Navy has the same approach to this matter as the other two Services. At present, that is not so.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

While I have great sympathy with what has been said, at first sight the Amendment seemed very attractive, I entirely agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not one which could possibly be accepted or worked in practice. I want to refer to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I do not support him at all in suggesting that we should make a further use of Clause 39—that is the omnibus Clause—unless it is absolutely necessary. The Naval Discipline Act in this respect differs and, after a great deal of discussion in the Select Committee, was deliberately made to differ from the Army and Air Force Acts in containing this limiting wording which did not permit it to be used when some other offence is mentioned. It is the greatest possible abuse to have this blanket charge of an offence against good order and naval discipline which can be used to cover any case where the prosecution cannot be bothered to think what the proper charge ought to be.

To return to this specific matter of drunkenness;as has been pointed out. it is perfectly true that the difficulty with the Navy arises from drunkenness on board ship, when everyone is liable to be on duty at a moment's notice. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members who served on the Select Committee, and also, perhaps of those who read the Report of the proceedings, that there was a great deal of discussion on whether or not we could have a separation in certain cases between a disciplinary code for use at sea and that used on shore. The Admiralty was very strongly opposed to that and eventually the Committee agreed with the Admiralty's view and accordingly we have the Bill as it stands.

The difficulty about the Clause as it stands is not as great as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). I do not believe that any difficulty can arise in the case of junior ratings, because a junior rating who returns on board drunk ought to be picked up as being drunk by the officer of;he watch and put down below, and there is no chance of his subsequently coming on duty. From time to time most captains experience cases in which junior ratings are brought before them and charged with being drunk on duty;when the case is considered it becomes apparent that the man must have returned on board drunk without having been observed. I can speak only for myself in this matter, but in those cases I have always dismissed the charge, or, if there has been a supporting charge of returning on board drunk, dealt with it as the smaller offence, the punishment of which has been quoted by my hon. Friend.

The case of a more senior rating or officer is a different matter. He may well come on board apparently perfectly sober and pass undetected to his cabin. Immediately afterwards some emergency may arise and the ship and his shipmates may be in danger because of his incapacity. It is to deal with that class of case that one requires the Clause to be drawn in its present wide form. I submit to the Committee that there is no real danger that it will be abused in practice.

Mr. Willis

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us why it is more difficult to detect drunkenness in officers than in seamen?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

My answer is that it is not normal for an officer of the watch to cross-examine other officers when they come on board—perhaps that is one law for the one and another for the other—but seamen are carefully inspected.

Mr. Steele

I imagined that the Amendments, which were carefully drawn, covered the very points which the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) mentioned. We had those very things in mind. Although I mentioned—and may have misled the Committee—the man coming back on leave and going aboard drunk, that is not the only occasion when a rating might be drunk. He might be found in the streets of Portsmouth, not having arrived at the ship, and if he is disorderly, he might be, as the Clause says, behaving …in a manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty's service. He might be in uniform. What is the difference in that case? What happens? He is brought on board and he can be charged.

There is the case of the older rating who might like his grog, as was mentioned, and the younger rating who does not like it, the older rating getting the extra allocation and finding that he is under the influence of alcohol on board ship. I should have thought that a careful reading of our Amendments would have shown that they cover the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the officer in question would have been on duty.

What we say is that if a person subject to the Bill is drunk on duty, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. If any rating or officer who is on board ship is always on duty, then no difficulty arises, because he is covered under either of the first two Amendments, but it seems fundamentally wrong that the Bill should apply the same penalty to two different crimes as it were, the case of a man who is on duty and the case of a man who is not on duty. There is a distinct difference.

I agree with the Admiralty that there are difficulties which the Air Force and Army do not have, but my complaint is that in facing these difficulties the Admiralty has been taking action to cover itself and not trying to find a form of words to meet the case. If the Amendments were accepted, a man who was on duty would definitely be liable to the penalty, but there would be a lesser penalty, which we specify, where a man was not on duty.

I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the matter between now and Report and that he may find some appropriate words to meet the difficulty.

Mr. Soames

I am afraid that this is a subject on which we feel rather strongly. The difficulty springs from the fact that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) did not appreciate the difficulties of applying the Amendment to life on board ship. What he did—what was probably going through his mind in looking at the Army and Air Force Acts —was to see that there was a difference and to ask why the Navy should not have the same procedure as the Army and Air Force. However, there is this difficulty, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) said, of differentiating on board ship between whether a man is or is not on duty, bearing in mind that a man may be called to be on duty on board ship at a moment's notice. Therefore, it would not be possible to specify in the Bill whether a man on hoard ship was on duty or not.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked why we could not have one law for men on board ship and another law for men ashore. The answer is that we cannot have two codes of discipline. It always has been, and it must continue to be, that there is one Naval Discipline Act for the Royal Navy. There is not one punishment for an offence committed ashore and another punishment for an offence committed on board. We cannot differentiate between the two. In view of these two difficulties, we cannot agree to accept the Amendment.

Mr. W. Wells

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is not possible, when an officer is called on duty and is found to be drunk, to charge him with being drunk on duty? Why is it so necessary to assimilate these two such different offences of being drunk on duty and being drunk otherwise than on duty and to treat them as though they were the same? We know that in practice officers who deal with these matters will be sensible, but it is a bad example to treat such different offences as though they were the same.

Mr. Soames

The reason is that the distinction on board ship is so narrow. In the Army and the Air Force, there is no doubt—a man is either on duty or he is not—but aboard ship the line is narrow. Do not let us forget that one of our prime objects is to ensure that the Navy has a code of discipline which suits life at sea. I am advised by those who have the greatest possible experience in these matters that it is impossible to differentiate in the way that the Amendment seeks to do for men on board ship.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 29 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.