HL Deb 05 March 1941 vol 118 cc593-604

LORD FARINGDON had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Report of the Court of Inquiry into conditions at an A.M.P.C. unit at Liverpool dealt with the allegations that conscientious objectors who had committed offences had been refused Court Martial and instead threatened with coercion; whether it is not of paramount importance that legal rights of access to Courts Martial should be maintained; whether the Report upholds these allegations; and what disciplinary action has been taken; whether they will state the charges upon which an officer and six non-commissioned officers are to be court-martialled following the Court of Inquiry into conditions at an A.M.P.C. unit at Liverpool; whether the Court Martial will have power to investigate whether any offences were condoned by superior officers; and whether the charges include any charge relating to the alleged refusal to remand offenders who were conscientious objectors for Court Martial as required by law; whether His Majesty's Government are aware that during the last war a commanding officer was relieved of his command following the illegal treatment of conscientious objectors in his unit; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to say at once that it is in no spirit of criticism of the War Office that I have put this Motion upon the Paper; it is merely for the sake of eliciting information and, since the Motion as I have put it down is already very full, I think that it will be unnecessary for me to add very much to it. However, for the benefit of those of your Lordships who are not acquainted with the circumstances and alleged incidents which have given rise to questions in another place and to an inquiry set up by the War Office, I venture to give certain details of the alleged occurrences.

These occurred at an A.M.P.C. Unit at Dingle Vale, near Liverpool; and, to summarise the complaints made by, I think, about twenty conscientious objectors who were sent to this unit, I can put them under eight heads: 1. Forcible dressing. 2. Charged by the commanding officer with 'not complying with orders' instead of 'disobeying orders,' given fourteen days' detention and assured that in no circumstances would they be court-martialled. 3. Bread-and-water diet with one slice of bread for breakfast, one for dinner and two for tea. 4. Solitary confinement in cells less than 4 feet wide, 10 feet high and 10 feet long. No light or ventilation and one blanket covering. 5. During the week beginning September 3 prisoners were aroused at 12, 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. and paraded round playground in shirt sleeves. It is not certain how many nights this occurred. On at least one occasion a regimental policeman refused to get the men up and asked them to report that he had done so. 6. Heads completely shaved. 7. Severely and brutally beaten by Provost Sergeant Cullins for refusing to work. Knocked about by other soldiers on exercise. 8. Very hard physical exercise on bread and water diet. Made to run round drill shed and jump sand bags for an hour. Fainting from exhaustion, were treated by buckets of water and the men kicked to their feet. Told to move a pile of coal in handfuls and not in sacks, and a little later to fill sacks and run round the square. Awakened at 10.30 p.m. and made to scrub a block floor and 'jabbed' when they stopped.

In order to amplify this a little, I venture to take a statement, chosen very much at random, made by one of a considerable number of men. This is the case of Leslie Worth, of Leeds: Christian objection. Registered for non-combatant service by the North-Eastern Tribunal. Appeal dismissed December 21, 1939. Summoned for failure to attend medical examination and fined £5 on June 10, 1940, and compulsorily examined. Received calling-up papers to N.C.C. unit in Glasgow on June 27, 1940. Arrested on July 31 and taken to Crookston Camp. Court-martialled in Glasgow on August 17 and sentenced to 28 days' detention. Removed to Barlinnie Detention Barracks. Released on December 13 and sent to Dingle Vale Schools, Liverpool, under escort and in uniform. September 14. Dressed in civilian clothes. Ordered by regimental police and guard to put on uniform and threatened with forcible dressing. Asked to see Orderly Officer and inquired by what regulation he could be forcibly dressed. Officer made no reply, advised Worth to dress in uniform and left. Colonel then appeared. 'The interview grew more and more stormy, ending with a crescendo of abuse and an order to put me on bread and water.' Breakfast one slice of bread. Forcibly dressed under protest by Police Sergeant. Interviewed the Colonel at mid-day. Taken back to guard room, unable to find out on what charge he was held. Allowed ordinary meals until September 22. Wednesday, September 18. Ordered by Captain Kemp 'to be a soldier.' Refused. Taken before Colonel and given fourteen days detention. Asked for a Court Martial and 'was told in a loud voice to shut up.'

I should say here that there is evidently a mistake in the dates at this point; I had not noticed it. It goes on: Friday, September 20. Turned out at 2 a.m. to scrub washbasins and at 4 a.m. to scrub our guard room. Sunday, September 22. Refused to work. 'Dragged about a bit' and put on bread and water. Monday, September 23. Refused to work and was 'beaten up' in the guard room, marched to butcher's shop and told to clean it out. Refused and was given a further beating. Bucket of water thrown over him. Marched back to guard room, 'receiving a blow on the head almost every step I took.' Taken out to drill with a party of men with rifles. Butted back and front with rifles, kicked on legs and struck on the face. That afternoon put in solitary confinement in a cell less than 4 ft. wide, about 10 ft. long and 10 ft. high. No light save from tiny grating near ceiling and tiled floor. One blanket for covering. Bread and water diet. Roused three times during that night, 12 p.m., 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. Tuesday, September 24. Made to do gym in heavy boots. Marched a mile for bath in the afternoon. Breakfast, one slice of bread, dinner, one slice; tea, two slices. Roused at 12, 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. that night. On each occasion made to walk round the Parade Ground for about five minutes in shirt sleeves. Wednesday, September 25. Up at 6 a.m. Head shaved. Bread and water. Thursday, September 26. Gave in through physical weakness. Taken to Liverpool College. October 9. Went to the C.S.M. and indicated he could no longer carry out his duties and refused to go on parade. Asked to see the Major. Several N.C.O.'s then …. dragged and kicked us on the paradé ground. There Captain Wright (second in command) ordered us to come to attention and right turn; we refused each time. The Captain then ordered us to be taken into a long shed, where we were ordered to 'double' round. We stood still. We were then kicked and struck by the N.C.O's until we would move. The N.C.O's (about ten of them) were spaced out and we were thrown from one to another, being struck with sticks and fists and kicked as we passed. The Captain all the time was giving encouragement. We could not stick this longer than half an hour, when we gave in. By that time there was a pool of blood from Foster's nose, Jordan had two black eyes, and all of us were very sore all over. We were all made to promise to be soldiers and the Captain then said he bore us no malice, and as far as he was concerned, now that we had: been punished, nothing further would be done. The rest of the day we went about our normal duties. In the evening we were taken before the Major and the evidence about refusing to obey orders given. No mention of the beating up. We were told that we should be charged in the morning with mutiny and insubordination. We were taken to the guard room. The next morning we were taken before the Major again. Formally charged and remanded for the CO. (Colonel Greenwood). We were told that the penalty for mutiny was death. We all went before the C.O. together. He was polite this time, and gave us a chance to speak. Some of them repeated their promise to be soldiers—some did not. Nothing was said about the beating up, nor was there any mention of trial or of punishment. We were further remanded and taken back to the college guard room. Late last night we were taken to have our equipment checked, and we were got up early this morning and escorted (with sixteen others from the college including Cook) to the station.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT)

Could the noble Lord let the House know where that statement was made?

LORD FARINGDON

That statement is from letters from the men concerned, and they are in the possession of the Central Board of Conscientious Objectors.

VISCOUNT EUBANK

Letters to whom?

LORD FARINGDON

I am sorry my information does not say, but the letters are in the possession of the Central Board of Conscientious Objectors. In this connection, I would like to read to your Lordships an extract from the Manual of Military Law, which on page 37, section 26, reads: If the Commanding Officer proposes to deal with the case summarily, otherwise than by awarding 1 minor punishment, he must ask the soldier whether he desires to be dealt with summarily or to be tried by a District Court Martial; and the soldier may, if he chooses, thereupon elect to be tried by a District Court Martial. This direction is repeated in other terms on page 470. I will not read it, but there is a note to it as follows: (As amended, June, 1932.) 'A. C.O. must never omit to ask the question prescribed by this subsection, otherwise he acts without jurisdiction and any award of punishment would be invalid'. I have here also an extract from page 470 of the Manual, in which it is stated: It will be observed that the right to elect for Court Martial applies unless the Commanding Officer awards a. 'minor punishment'. Page 471, Note 5, amplifies this term thus: Minor punishments (the soldier having no right to elect trial by Court Martial)— Confinement to barracks up to 14 days. Extra guards and piquets. Admonition. Thus any award of detention should be preceded by an opportunity for the accused to elect trial by Court Martial. I hope that there may be found to be considerable exaggeration in this matter, It is a matter which I am sure all your Lordships will view with the greatest seriousness and considerable alarm.

I should like to suggest in this connection that the War Office should consider re-issuing the letter which was issued by them on September 19, 1916. That letter appears to have beer sent to commanding officers, and its terms were as follows: I am commanded by the Army Council to inform you that it appears from reports which have been received in this Department that in certain instances attempts have been made by Commanding Officers to compel conscientious objectors to perform their military duties by ignoring acts of grave insubordination and ensuring compliance by physical means. I am, therefore, to request that you will be good enough to take steps to ensure that such a procedure, if it is taking place, immediately ceases, and that Commanding Officers be informed that acts of insubordination committed by conscientious objectors should be dealt with strictly in accordance with the law. The men concerned should immediately be placed in arrest and remanded for trial by Court Martial, unless a minor punishment is awarded, or the soldier concerned elects to accept the award of his Commanding Officer. It has also been reported that Commanding Officers have been awarding sentences of detention without giving the soldier concerned the opportunity of exercising his right to be tried by a Court Martial under the provisions of Section 46 (8) of the Army Act. If this should prove to have been the case, the Army Council will seriously consider whether the officer concerned, who has been guilty of a grave dereliction of duty and disregard of the law, can be permitted to retain his command. It should be clearly pointed out to all concerned that the treatment of the conscientious objector who is resisting lawful military commands should be exactly similar to that accorded to any other soldier who is guilty of acts of insubordination, that it is entirely subversive of discipline if a soldier who commits an act of insubordination is not immediately placed in close confinement, that any special treatment in the way of coercion other than by the methods of punishment laid down in the Army Act and King's Regulations is strictly prohibited, and that very serious notice will be taken of any irregularities in this respect which may come to light. I have already said that it is in no spirit of criticism of the War Office that I have put this Motion on the Paper, but from these incidents two questions appear to emerge. First, there is the question of the actual brutality to conscientious objectors. The War Office have already, I believe, appointed a Committee of Inquiry, and as a result of that Committee has ordered a Court Martial of certain officers and men. From their point of view the War Office seem, I repeat, to be dealing most satisfactorily with this most unfortunate affair. But there is the other point of view, which is the legal treatment of conscientious objectors, and this I suggest would be met were the letter of 1916 which I have read, or some similar letter, issued by the War Office. I beg to move for Papers.

LORD ARNOLD

My Lords, this question which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has asked deals with an unpopular and troublesome matter—the problem of conscientious objectors. This is the first time in this war that matters relating to conscientious objectors have been brought up in your Lordships' House, but they were raised on more than one occasion—indeed several times—in the late war in your Lordships' House, and I am sure that any discussion of such problems will receive now, as it received then, a patient and tolerant hearing. In regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, although the Dingle Vale report to which he refers has not been published, it admittedly established a prima facie case of wrong and harsh treatment because, as the result of its findings, the War Office have ordered that an officer and six noncommissioned officers should be court-martialled. The most important of the questions on the Order Paper is as to whether conscientious objectors who had committed offences were refused a Court Martial and were threatened instead with coercion. That is the point I specially desire to emphasize. That is linked up with the question in the second paragraph—namely, "whether the charges include any charge relating to the alleged refusal to remand offenders who were conscientious objectors for Court Martial as required by law." I hope the Government will be able to give satisfactory answers about these matters. If it be the case that there has been coercion, or that there is still possibly coercion, the War Office will see that it is stopped. As my noble friend made it quite clear, such coercion is really contrary to military law.

I want to say at once, and I join with what my noble friend said in his opening remarks, that according to my information the attitude of the War Office as regards conscientious objectors in this war has throughout been courteous and helpful. The authorities have a very difficult task to perform. Obviously conscientious objectors who are prepared to go to the lengths of the men in question are sincere in their convictions, and they should have been exempted from military service or given some alternative form of service. When I say that, it is not to criticise the tribunals, who again have a very difficult task; but it illustrates the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of deciding aright all the cases that go before the tribunals. But I say quite definitely that, as regards the conscientious objector problem, things are much better to-day than they were in the last war. Altogether in the last war up- wards of 6,000 men were put in prison, and nearly 1,000 were imprisoned for more than two years. It was mainly, no doubt, because of the sufferings of these men and the stand that they took that the Government wisely decided that things must be different this time.

When conscription was introduced in 1939 in the House of Commons, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who was then Prime Minister, said this, and I quote it because it bears directly on this question asked by my noble friend to-day: We all recognise that there are people who have genuine and very deep-seated scruples on the subject of military service, and even if we do not agree with those scruples we can respect them if they are honestly held. I think we found it was both a useless and exasperating waste of time to force these people to act in a manner contrary to their convictions. I submit not only that these are words of wise statesmanship but that they are also humane. I would ask this question: Was not an attempt made at Dingle Vale to do just what Mr. Chamberlain deprecated?

Let me say a word about the War Office letter of September, 1916, which has been read to your Lordships by the noble Lord. I should like to join in the plea which he made that a similar letter should be sent now. It would ensure, if it is sent out, that in future conscientious objectors will be dealt with in accordance with the law. In view of the Dingle Vale occurrences there seems to be sufficient ground for re-issuing this letter. To re-issue it would do no harm, and it might do much good. If it is known throughout the Army that wrong and ill-treatment of conscientious objectors may be followed by a Court Martial, ill-treatment is likely to cease. I would just stress the point that it is not only humane but right to ask for fair treatment of conscientious objectors whether one agrees with them or not.

I have now been in Parliament for nearly thirty years and I think on the whole the most eloquent speech which I have heard during that time was one made by Lord Hugh Cecil, as he then was, now Lord Quickswood, a speech made in the other place pleading for tolerance for conscientious objectors, though he was not one himself. That speech contained some very memorable passages. Nobody supposes that the War Office wants the kind of thing to happen which apparently did happen at Dingle Vale. Nobody wants men to be grossly ill-treated with consequent Courts Martial and so forth. Surely all this kind of thing is alien to the British temperament, and I trust that the military authorities will do what they can to put a stop to wrong treatment of conscientious objectors. These men may be thought to be misguided but they have to suffer a very great deal for their convictions, anyhow in the Army.

LORD CROFT

No.

LORD ARNOLD

Certainly, they have. If a conscientious objector is in the Army he feels he ought to be exempt, and if he refuses to obey an order he suffers naturally under military law. But what we are pressing for is that he should be dealt with according to the law and should not be subjected to gross and harsh treatment.

LORD CROFT

My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord's question, I would like to say that even though I might desire to do so, I think it would be quite improper for me to enter into controversy with regard to the lengthy statement that the noble Lord read, which I quite imagined must be the case put to some high authority in the Army, but which it transpired was actually sent to the Council of Conscientious Objectors or some body of that kind. But I do wish your Lordships to realise that here we have a very large formation; I think there may be something like 1,300 men in this particular corps, and the troubles which the noble Lord mentioned refer in fact only to fourteen soldiers out of the whole of that number. It would be wrong, I think, for me to introduce into this debate any element of controversy, as the question is undoubtedly sub judice until Court-Martial proceedings are over. I will only point out to your Lordships, who have listened to the very lengthy story of the noble Lord, that possibly the spirits of those who have to endeavour to run this organisation might themselves have been gravely aggravated by this long story of conflict with discipline. But in saying so I am not excusing anything which it may be proved in the Court-Martial inquiry was contrary to military law, and I can only give an assurance to your Lordships that having decided, as Parliament has, that conscientious objection is to be recognised, we intend to sec that the law is maintained.

With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Arnold, as to whether the letter of September, 1916, should be repeated, I am inclined to think that that may not be necessary, because we have heard of no other trouble of any description all through this country except this one; that is so far as I am aware. I think the facts are so well known that 1 rather doubt if it is necessary, but I certainly will see that the suggestion is considered, and if it is thought desirable to re-issue the letter. The Report of the Court of Inquiry into the conditions of the A.M.P.C. unit at Liverpool was rendered in accordance with the terms of reference which were given to the Court and which were as follows: To inquire into and report upon the treatment of, and conditions of service of non-combatant personnel of No. 12 Centre Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps, Non-Combatant Corps, including the matters raised in complaints relating to the following:— Then followed the names of fourteen soldiers.

The Report did not find that any conscientious objectors who had committed offences had been refused Court Martial and instead threatened with coercion. It is considered of paramount importance that legal rights of access to Courts Martial should be maintained. Cases in which disciplinary action is deemed necessary as a result of the findings of this Court of Inquiry are sub judice. The charges upon which an officer and some N.C.O.s are being tried by Court Martial following the Court of Inquiry are at present in draft form and have not yet been definitely approved. The Court Martial will be concerned only in dealing with the charges on which the accused are brought before it for trial. If there were any facts to prove that any of the offences, the subject of charges, were condoned by superior officers, such facts will no doubt be brought forward by the accused in their defence by way of a plea in bar for trial. No such facts have so far come to light.

With regard to the last question of the noble Lord concerning a commanding officer a good many years ago, in the absence of any particulars as to the individual commanding officer referred to during the last war, it is impossible now to trace the incident, but if the noble Lord desires that ancient history should be revived and will supply me with the name of the commanding officer, I will certainly do what I can to find out the facts.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for his reply, which is, on the whole, I may say, satisfactory to myself, and will be to those who have, like myself, been disturbed by this episode. As to the case of the commanding officer in the last war, I have no wish to revive that ancient history. I do rather regret, if I may say so, that the noble Lord is not prepared to re-issue the letter of the type that has been mentioned. I cannot see, as Lord Arnold has said, that any harm can be done by re-issuing it, and considerable harm might possibly be prevented.

LORD CROFT

I will refer the matter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

LORD FARINGDON

I thank the noble Lord even for his consideration of this point. May I say in passing that I do venture to regret that the inquiry held was in secret and that the Court Martial to be held will be in secret? A number of officers' names have been mentioned in connection with this affair and I venture to suggest to His Majesty's Government that this holding of inquiries in secret is an undesirable practice. It was suggested in another place, only last week, in connection with a certain episode, that it was undesirable to wash our dirty linen in public. I think that on the whole it is better to wash one's dirty linen in public. It shows that when one's linen is dirty one is prepared to wash it, and that seems to me really the important thing. It is all the difference between a democratic country and the totalitarian countries. Under the veil of secrecy much can be done and is done which, were it known, could not be done. I venture to believe that publicity is practically never misplaced, certainly not in this kind of episode, quite apart, as I have said, from the effect on the reputation of various persons who have been involved or have been mentioned in the case. I once again express my thanks to the noble Lord for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned.