HC Deb 02 May 1961 vol 639 cc1346-55
Mr. Hale

I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, after "enlistment," to insert: or was called up for compulsory national service.

The Chairman

I think that it will be convenient to discuss also the hon. Member's Amendment in page 5, line 5, at the end to add: notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary nothing herein contained or provided by any previous enactment or statutory instrument shall authorise the calling up to complete a period of national service or the detention of any man in national service who has been formally discharged from national service to enlist under a long-term engagement or who has been formally discharged by purchase from a long-term enlistment.

Mr. Hale

I am grateful. I think that it is an admirable suggestion, Sir Gordon.

I hope to discuss this matter briefly, because the Under-Secretary already has in mind the question I wish to raise. The Situation to which I wish to call attention, and for which I wish to provide a remedy, is that of a constituent of mine who was called up for military service in, I think, August last year. I apologise for not having every precise fact at my finger-tips, but, frankly, I had not expected that we should have made the progress which we have made, with the willing co-operation of my hon. Friends, and I had not thought that the Amendment would be discussed this morning.

It was about August when my constituent, who bears a name that is greatly honoured in Oldham, was called up for military service. I understand that after a week or two he did not like it, and that, after all, is not an uncommon experience in any transition from one occupation to another. Then he became more acclimatised and in about October of last year he made the decision that on the whole this was not a bad thing to do and he signed on as a Regular soldier.

3.15 a.m.

There is no dispute on the facts. He was discharged from his conscription in order to become a Regular soldier, and, having been duly discharged, he became a Regular soldier. He was employed in Germany. He tried quite hard. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, he has an excellent conduct record, but I am quoting the example of my constituent as a graphic illustration of the necessity for the Amendment.

Having considered the matter carefully, he became convinced that this was not the career for him. He made application under the provisions which an hour or two ago hon. Members on both sides of the Committee were saying were readily accessible to every young soldier. He decided to buy himself out. He did. He paid not £20. He paid in marks. I think that I am right in saying that he paid 234 marks and 40 pfennigs. He obtained a receipt and was discharged from the Regular forces. He said, "Boy, I am going back to Oldham, which we all like."

At that stage some doubts occurred in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not mind. Quite frankly, on any single issue of the application of any rule of evidence or justice I have long since ceased to hope that my standards would apply. What I am entitled to demand is that some standard of some sort should apply. When I hear the Colonial Secretary saying at a meeting of the Primrose League that the cornerstone of British justice is the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, or imprisonment without trial, I realise that there is a diversity of opinion.

I make this serious submission, that in the interpretation of facts there is one rule which has never been challenged. It was laid down 600 or 700 years ago by William of Occam. It is called Occam's Razor, and it consists of the simple, non-pretentious words: "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

Mr. Ramsden

What was the first word?

Mr. Hale

"Entia" is difficult, but the rest is recognisable to the Under-Secretary of State, and I know that he will accept the quotation.

In other words, even if there is an ordinary explanation of complicated facts, one accepts it. It is on that proposition that most juries are directed to assess the interpretation of facts. I say this because I know that in the mind of the Under Secretary of State and of the right hon. Gentleman there has been some sort of suspicion that behind this there lies a complicated plot. They say that he popped into the Regular Army with the intention of getting out. Let us be frank about it. The facts do not bear that interpretation.

Mr. Mayhew

Irrespective of that case, as I read the Amendments, they would permit somebody to go from National Service into the Regular Army and then purchase his discharge. Am I misreading the Amendments?

Mr. Hale

He would be able to do that.

Mr. Mayhew

Irrespective of the case my hon. Friend has mentioned, he wishes to establish the right of people to go from National Service to the Regular Army and then purchase their discharge.

Mr. Hale

I would not say establish the right to go from National Service into the Regular Army, because National Service has virtually been abolished. By the time the Act is on the Statute Book there will be only a bare minimum of National Service men, but I wish to establish a lawful proposition which can be understood by conscripted men of 18.

Let us face the facts. My hon. Friend must not dash in and assume the worst of my constituent, because if he comes to Oldham, as I am told he went to Coventry, I would be delighted to see him. He will find that the people in Oldham are extremely intelligent, decent and loyal people.

Dr. Alan Glyn

Does the hon. Member suggest that it is fair for a National Service man who has been called up to join the Regular Army and then to pay £20 to get his discharge, having in no way completed the normal term of National Service which any other National Service man would have to complete?

Mr. Hale

If the hon. Member wants me to go into the question of what is fair, I would say that many things are unfair. Many of us might die tomorrow from no fault of our own, and many might survive without benefit to the community.

I must not go into the question of accidents, and of what obligations a man who is conscripted undertakes, what contracts he is bound by, and whether, when the Government say to him, "Private Twitton, we insist that you comply with our rules", he is entitled to say, "Very well, I will comply with the rules", as he did. I am not saying what was his motive. I do not know.

All I am told—and I have not seen him, because he is in Germany—is that he thought that, on the whole, it would be a good idea to become a Regular soldier, tried it for a month or so, and found that he did not like it. Then somebody said, "If you do not like it you can get out for £20", and he found he could do this by taking advantage of the regulation issued by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wigg

The lad in question also knew a thing or two. Not only did he join the Regular Army from a National Service engagement, but by so doing he got an increased rate of pay, probably far in excess of the £20 it cost him to buy himself out, so that however this transaction worked out he made a profit from it.

Mr. Hale

I am told by John Gordon that the Government are paying our forces in Germany in depreciated marks —the value of the mark having recently been adjusted—and are not giving them the advantage of the normal rates of exchange which now operate for everybody else. I do not know why my hon. Friend keeps on popping in testimonials to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Wigg

My hon. Friend serves the cause of fairness and I serve the cause of truth. On the question of the depreciation of the mark my hon. Friend will find that I pressed the Secretary of State some time ago to put this thing right.

Mr. Hale

If my hon. Friend lays down a contractual obligation for my constituent my constituent is entitled to say, looking at that contract and the obligations contained in it, "I shall take a certain course".

Dr. Alan Glyn

What the hon. Member says is true, but the man has got out of his second contract, and that second contract was made only on condition of his release from National Service; therefore, presumably, he still has to complete his National Service.

Mr. Hale

That is the real trouble. I am trying to be brief. It is my fault, because people judge the facts before they have heard them, which is not one of the cornerstones of British justice, and express views on a series of events which I have not yet narrated. My constituent paid his £20 in marks—I believe that it was 234 marks and 40 pfennigs. Then there was some demur. The authorities consulted. Perhaps the Under-Secretary himself was not quite sure, and it may be that his P.P.S. was sent to investigate, because there was a great delay.

My constituent paid the money in November, and about three or four months went by, after which my constituent returned from Germany to a less reputable part of Lancashire, and was there kept not in custody in the ordinary sense, but certainly kept in the forces for some months. I believe that it was from the end of November to somewhere about March. Then came a receipt for the 234 marks and 40 pfennigs. He got his discharge from the Regular forces, and by that time, after all the consultations that had gone on, National Service had finished. This is March. I would not commit myself on the date. All I say is that on the whole this speech is much more accurate in detail than most of the speeches that I deliver in this Chamber and it can roughly be relied on.

It was, I think, early in April when the young man was smuggled back to Germany. The astonishing thing is that having given him his discharge, having told him that he had ceased to be one of Her Majesty's soldiers, having been released from his engagement, after months of frustration he is suddenly shanghaied to Germany. I pay tribute to the Minister for his courtesy and for the information which he has given me on other matters. I said, "We know that this sort of thing can happen under this Government. I am asking you under what power do you do it?"

Mr. Profumo

I hope that at least the hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee that I wrote him a long letter about this. I hope that he recollects that. He has said that he wants to be accurate about this matter. The man bought himself out. He was perfectly entitled to do that. But having bought himself out he was still liable to do National Service.

I am under an obligation to see that people do not slip through the noose. Although National Service has come to an end, there was still a liability on this young man. There was no question of shanghaiing him abroad. He was brought back to this country because under the present Constitution I am not entitled to call up anybody unless he is in this country. He was called up and opted to finish his service at once.

I have written a long letter to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will not read it to the Committee, but I hope that he will read it to himself.

Mr. Hale

I have not seen a second one. I recall the first letter and what the right hon. Gentleman said, that this man consented to go back. I have not seen the man, because he is in Germany. I have only heard from his parents. I have had a letter from the man and nothing in the letter indicated any agreement. Indeed, he sent forms to submit to the right hon. Gentleman suggesting clearly that he had not agreed. But it is true to say that he had not answered, because I have not had time to put this matter to the right hon. Gentleman. All this happened in the last few days.

On this specific case, I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the man was kept in Preston Baracks for three or four months. Is that to count as part of his service? He was then called back to Germany. Is the right hon. Gentle man proposing to ignore the six months he spent with the Regular forces? Is he going to stick to the £20 that the young man paid for his discharge? That would seem to be a fraud. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman says that the man should serve his military service because the authorities had come to the conclusion that he was trying to dodge it. I can understand that point of view, although I do not accept it. He is now saying that while they kept the young man for three or four months and took the £20 he paid for his discharge—

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)

That will be paid back to him. Surely the man will get that back.

Mr. Hale

I am asking whether his service in the Regular Army will count towards his compulsory service and whether the money will be repaid. The principal point is whether the six months or so that he served in the Regular forces will count towards his military service.

Let us be frank and honest about this. Suppose that this was a swindle. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have no reason for having any views one way or the other. I have not seen the lad. It may be that he wanted to get out and, if so, he was probably put up to this by an older soldier—we know how these things work, and we know that this possibility of release has been the subject of comment. Suppose that it was a swindle. Why not say, "The chap will serve out his two years from the day he enlisted. Let us call it a day."

I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that now—I ask him to say it tomorrow. Something like that would be appropriate. But, if not, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he must inform the Committee under what power, under what Section of the Act, under what Army Regulation, this man was directed to Germany. If not, I shall have to consider the question of a writ of habeus corpus and how far it applies in Germany, and how it is that people can be illegally called up under statutory powers which have now expired.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Ramsden

I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment. It seems, to me to provide that any National Service man who enters into a Regular engagement before he has completed his National Service liability shall not be required to complete his National Service liability on discharge from the Regular forces, for whatever reason. An Amendment in these terms is more appropriate to the National Service Acts where, were it desirable, it would be made applicable to all three Services. But I am not persuaded by what the hon. Gentleman has said that an Amendment in these terms is in the least desirable.

Whatever the merits of the case which the hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee—and I do not propose to go into the merits of any particular case this evening—the power which we have, and which this Amendment would effectively destroy, is still necessary to prevent Regular service being used as a back door to get out of National Service.

I think that it will be widely accepted in the Committee that it would be wrong if people could easily use the right of enlisting as regular soldiers at a higher rate of pay in order to use the right of discharge to avoid a National Service obligation. There have been cases where this has been tried, and I am glad to say that there have been cases under which the power has been effectively exercised to prevent scrimshanking. I must say that, satisfied as I am of the need for this power, I cannot possibly recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hale

Where does the hon. Gentleman get the power from? Will he tell me under what power, under what Section, and under what instrument he demands the right to call up these people after they have been discharged from the forces? I say seriously to the Under-Secretary that if he is not prepared to give me the source of the authority for this power, we will try a writ of habeas corpus and see how it works.

Mr. Ramsden

The power lies in the National Service Act, 1948, under which a man who is called up in circumstances which are relevant here has to complete his liability. I apologise for not being able to cite the Section.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Profumo

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Looking at the hour of the night, and at hon. Members opposite, this seems an appropriate moment to move this Motion. I am satisfied that we have made the progress that I had hoped we would tonight after a rather slow start. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that we have had a very useful debate. I am also aware of what the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said earlier. Then, I disagreed with him, but now I agree with him. I hope that when we sit again the Committee will make the same progress, indeed rather more speedy progress, with the rest of the Bill.

I quite agree with the right hon. Member that this is a Bill of great importance and that we have it only once in five years. Let us not forget, however, that it has been looked at thoroughly by the Select Committee and has been recommitted to the House. Everything I and my hon. Friend have heard tonight, I assure the Committee, has been of value. I hope that if we now report Progress it will be to the general benefit of my hon. Friends and hon. and right hon. Members opposite and that when we sit again we shall make speedy progress. That is not merely a pious hope.

Mr. G. Brown

I think that this is the moment to report Progress. I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman claims that this is the point he wanted to reach. However, we shall allow him to claim whatever he wants to claim. As to the future, he stated a hope. I want to put on record that we on this side of the Committee will deal with the rest of the Bill as we have dealt with this part—faithfully and properly in the interests of our constituents, dealing with every part of it and giving it just as much weight as it ought to have. So long as that is clearly understood, we shall, on those terms, agree with the Minister that we ought, at this stage, to call it a day.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of order. I understood that all the Amendments were to be called. I should like to know whether that applies to the new Clauses, Sir William?

The Deputy Chairman

We have not got as far as the new Clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.