HC Deb 02 May 1957 vol 569 cc437-46
Mr. Steele

I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out line 38.

The penalty of a fine which is included in the punishments in this Clause is an entirely new penalty to be inserted in the Naval Discipline Act, and I think that we should have some explanation from the Admiralty about it. The Clause gives a list of punishments, which starts with (a) death, goes on to include imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, and then there is a gradual scaling down until we Come to— (h) dismissal from the ship or naval establishment to which the offender belongs. Next comes a fine, and after that a severe reprimand.

The purpose of this Amendment is to take out the fine as a punishment for naval officers, because, in effect, this penalty applies only to naval officers. In this matter, the Select Committee and the Admiralty have accepted the advice of the Pilcher Committee, which made this recommendation. However, I read with great interest the discussions of the Pilcher Committee, and I find that, in contrast to the Admiralty, neither the Army nor the Royal Air Force has accepted this punishment in the appropriate discipline Act. It seems to me that we are entitled to some explanation why the Admiralty on this occasion has departed from what the Army has done.

In the discussion on the last Clause, one of the reasons which the Civil Lord gave for the Clause being drafted as it is was that the Army had this provision, and he thought it right and reasonable that the Admiralty should have it, too. On this occasion, however, the Admiralty has departed from what the Army has done.

The other point is that, in reading the Report of the Select Committee, I find that there was a very good discussion on this matter, and that a warning was given by one member of the Committee that this penalty should not be imposed lightly. Much more important than either the fact that the Army has not accepted it or the fact that a warning was given by a member of the Select Committee is the injustice that may ensue from an application of this penalty.

I can visualise an occasion on which two officers could be charged with the same offence, whatever it might be, and each is subjected to a similar fine. On the one hand, one of the officers may come from a wealthy family and may have a private income of his own, with some money to spare. The punishment of a fine in his case would be no punishment at all. On the other hand. the other officer may have no private income. He may be a married man with a family. The penalty of a line in his case would be an extreme hardship. Therefore, when the same penalty or punishment is applied to these two officers for the same offence, it would in the one case not be a punishment at all, but in the other case would be an extreme hardship.

Further, the second officer may not have the money with which to pay the fine, and if he was not in possession of the money with which to pay, we should like to know what would happen to him. Generally, in a civil court, if an offender is given a sentence, it may be that he is sentenced to so many day's imprisonment or alternatively ordered to pay a fine. Any man who has sufficient money pays the fine, and what, in effect, that means is that a person buys himself out of prison with his money, because the alternative would be a prison sentence.

I think we ought to know what would happen in these cases. This is a new penalty for the Admiralty which has been inserted into this Bill. The Army does not want it, and it seems to me that we must have some satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary before we are prepared to accept it.

Mr. Willis

I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). When the Bill was before the Select Committee, I expressed several doubts about it, which will be found recorded in the Minutes of Evidence.

We had a long discussion in the Select Committee, first of all, as to whether the penalty should be applied to officers and ratings, and then whether it should be applied in wartime only or in war and peace. On the first point, we had the suggestion, I think on the advice of the Admiralty, which, I am glad to say, issued a memorandum exonerating my former branch—the artificers' branch—against the slanderous charges made of their behaviour, that it should not apply to ratings. I think that was a wise decision. We decided that it should apply to officers.

7.0 p.m.

We also decided that it should be applied both in peace-time and in wartime. I am not very happy about that. I was not happy about it during the Committee discussions, and in paragraph 530 of the Report I expressed my doubts. I said that after listening to the arguments I could see that there was a case for this punishment in war-time, but I could not see that there was a very strong case for it in peace-time. I said that I should have thought it was far worse for an officer serving a long term in peace-time to be severely reprimanded. I pointed out what my hon. Friend has just pointed out, that to some officers a fine would mean nothing; it would be no punishment at all. But a severe reprimand or a stoppage of leave would be a severe punishment, one which an officer would be likely to feel were he well-to-do, as some officers are.

During the evidence, the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallet) quoted a type of case to which he thought this would apply. He said that to punish an officer by stopping his leave was undesirable, but I was not impressed by his argument. He said that if an officer happened to be serving in a ship and was suffering from boils or something of that kind, and should got away from the ship for exercise, it was a bad thing to stop his leave. I do not think that a good argument. If an officer is comparatively well-to-do, he can, with the introduction of a fine as a penalty, buy his freedom without suffering great punishment. He buys his right to be ashore at little cost to himself, unless he happens to be an officer with no other source of income, and I agree that there are far more of that type of officer than there used to be.

This would seem to create an unfairness which was well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) in his example of the two officers guilty of the same offence and punished in this way. To one it would be no punishment at all, and to the other it would be a very severe punishment. During the Select Committee discussions we raised the question of the effect upon a man's family, and some dubiety was expressed about whether we should introduce this form of punishment because of the possible effect upon the family. I think it was the Chairman who suggested that there should be a warning inserted about this in the regulations, and we were told that it would be included.

We were not told what exactly the Admiralty had in mind about the regulations in connection with the introduction of this new penalty, and I think that at least, even though the Government do not see fit to accept the Amendment, we should be told what the Admiralty has in mind about regulations it is intended to introduce to deal with this new penalty. That might ease the minds of some hon. Members about its application and particularly about the effect upon a man's family.

Mr. Soames

This was a recommendation of the Pilcher Committee which the Army and the Air Force did not see fit to accept. I would assure the Committee that the reason the Admiralty accepted it was not in order to avoid hurting the feelings of the Attorney-General. It was because for a long time the Admiralty has thought that the power to inflict a fine would be a good addition to punishments which can be given to officers.

There are only two punishments between dismissal from the Service and a severe reprimand which can be given to officers. They are forfeiture of seniority and dismissal from ship. I should like the Committee to think about offences which it might be considered would be too small to be punished by dismissal from the Service and too big for a severe reprimand. One can imagine a case where such an offence was committed and where neither forfeiture of seniority nor dismissal from ship would be considered in any way a punishment to the officer concerned.

I should like to give an example of such a case which occurred in the postwar period, but before doing so I wish to make clear that such behaviour as I am about to recount is not typical of the war-time officers, to the vast majority of whom the Royal Navy owes an eternal debt of gratitude. But it would be idle to suppose that such things as I propose to mention never happen among the less responsible elements.

At the end of the war a number of officers were being sent home for eventual demobilisation. They refused to embark in particular quarters of a ship. They were court-martialled and found guilty of disobedience. No kind of reprimand would have had any effect upon them. To dismiss them from their ships or award a loss of seniority would have been useless. Even dismissal from the Service, which was the only thing these officers were waiting for, would not have done any good. A fine would have been the perfect answer. That is one example, and I think it a good example. There are, then, cases where a fine would be a suitable punishment.

The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) mentioned a number of well-known reasons why a fine is not always a good punishment in civil law. He remarked how much heavier it weighs upon a poor man than upon a rich man. Of course, that is so, but the object of inserting this into the list of punishments is to provide a particular punishment for an officer when it fits the crime and would prove to be a punishment.

That is not to say that a fine should be always imposed for certain offences. We feel that there are certain offences where a dismissal from the Service would be too great a punishment and a reprimand would be too small a punishment; that neither forfeiture of seniority nor dismissal from ship would be a punishment but that a fine would meet the case. Of course, were an officer a millionaire, to fine him a month's pay would not be a very effective punishment. But we are trying to write into the Bill a punishment which would be suitable to impose on the great majority of naval officers who might commit some crime, and we should like as it were, to have this form of punishment in the armoury of our punishments. It could be administered in appropriate circumstances. We think it is a good addition, and we are grateful to the Pilcher Committee for having recommended it.

Sir P. Agnew

This Committee has been impressed with the appropriateness of a fine inflicted as a punishment in the case which the Minister cited of temporary officers just returning home. This punishment has very much to comment it; it would have been very appropriate in the case of those in the Service for a very short time, such as during war or an emergency, who have no career at stake.

Without going over the arguments, I would ask the Minister whether, between now and Report, he would look into the question of punishment by fine being restricted to officers holding temporary commissions and not made applicable to Regular officers.

Mr. Ede

I hope that that suggestion will not be adopted. To put into the Bill a distinction between temporary officers and other officers would be very detrimental to this Service, or to any other. It is essential that everybody in the Service should feel that a man holding the rank of officer is an officer. The mere fact that he is temporary may be to his credit. To put him into a class apart would be detrimental.

I would ask about the way in which this fine is to be administered. I accept the objection made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) to the fine being included, and on the assumption that the Minister will thank my hon. Friend for the courteous and able way in which he has presented his case but will regret that he cannot include it in the Bill—[Laughter.] Well, I hope that the Minister will be at least polite.

In any court, the question of fines is very difficult, for reasons that have been given. The Minister said, offhand, "Deduct a month's pay". To deduct a month's pay there and then from a man who is living on his pay and to leave him to be fed by the ravens from Heaven for the next month is to inflict an appalling punishment on him and on any dependants that he has. In a civil court his circumstances are taken into account. One of my hon. Friends mentioned that if a man did not pay his fine he could be sent to prison, but as far as I know there is no such provision in the Bill.

It is suggested that it is an alternative, but it is not an alternative to a fine. The courts are reluctant to put a man into a position in which he has either to pay a lump sum or accept the alternative of imprisonment. In many Acts passed by Parliament and sympathetically administered by the courts there is provision by which payment is spread over a certain length of time. The court takes into account the man's statement of need. It can get a certificate from his employer.

In the case we are considering, the man's pay could easily be mentioned to the court by a competent officer who knows what it is. I hope that in the regulations that are to be made on the assumption that the Amendment will be rejected provision will be made for that situation. A civil court often has great difficulty in collecting even the small sums that it asks for; in this case there will be a deduction from the man's pay before he receives it.

7.15 p.m.

I recollect fining a soldier £1. He had been 121 days in the Army, only four of which had been effective, because he had been absent without leave or in detention for all the other time. He said, "I haven't got it." I answered. "When you have earned a little money in the Army we shall get it from the pay office." The Minister is in that position. On the assumption that he intends to retain the penalty of a fine, I ask him to take into account in making the regulations the relative wealth of a person charged with an offence so that he can discharge the penalty without hardship which would reduce his efficiency as an officer and might punish his family rather more than him.

Mr. G. R. Howard (St. Ives)

It is a matter of regret that this matter has been raised in this form. Those who were on the Departmental Committee will remember that I took a very strong view on that occasion. I do not want to say more than is necessary. Any suggestion that this penalty should apply only to wartime or Reserve officers is an insult.

I congratulate the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary on the careful way in which he stated the case of these men. Whether a fine is right or not, I am very strongly in favour, if it is to be imposed at all. of its being imposed on everybody. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has so very well said, if a man, in time of war or emergency, is considered to be fit, as some of us were in the last war, to command Her Majesty's ships, including destroyers, there should not be differentiation between them and Regular Service officers in time of peace. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance either that the fine will be scrapped altogether or that it will be applied to every kind of naval officer.

Sir P. Agnew

As I made the suggestion of differentiating between temporary and Regular officers, I would assure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) that I bad no intention of insulting those who were temporary officers. Indeed, I did not regard it as an insult to make a differentiation of this kind in regard to punishment.

The whole purpose of punishment is to discover something that really punishes. For a Regular officer to be severely reprimanded has a lasting effect upon his career, and is as great a slur upon his reputation and honour as any fine administered to a temporary officer. I have served with many temporary officers at sea; one of them is a highly-esteemed Member of the House of Commons.

Mr. Steele

The speech made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) indicates that sometimes the intention is different from the indication. While the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not intend any insult to these officers, the mere possibility that the differentiation might be put into the Bill showed that it would implicate the temporary officers in that way. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had read the Select Committee's Report with care he would have observed that the matter was very carefully considered and was rejected on those grounds.

We thought it was wise to raise the matter in this form because this was a new penalty and we felt that the Committee should have an opportunity to discuss it. We felt that the Parliamentary Secretary should be given an opportunity to explain why it has been introduced. I wish, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), to congratulate him on the careful wording of his speech.

Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I wish to emphasise what my right hon. Friend said, that the regulations on this matter must be clear. The administration is important, and we hope that will be carefully watched.

Mr. Soames

To answer the point raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I would refer him to Clause 44 (6), which says: A fine shall not exceed the amount of the offender's basic pay for thirty days… That is why I said a month's pay because, in fact, that is the maximum fine. The subsection then says: and may be recovered by deductions from his pay in such manner as may be provided by regulations… I think that covers the point made by the right hon. Member. Of course we accept it, and the regulations will be such as to enable the fine to be spread over a period. On the other hand, it would cease to be a punishment if it were spread over too long a period. This is a question of the happy mean.

When considering the question of hurting the man's family, the right hon. Member will appreciate that there are a number of penalties in the Bill which affect the family, such as loss of pay during detention and dismissal from ship, which involves half pay for a time. I certainly take the point made by the right hon. Member, and the regulations will be drawn in that sense.

Mr. Steele

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 44 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.