HL Deb 07 December 1948 vol 159 cc836-48

3.36 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ammon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Liability of army and air force pensioners to recall for service.

(4) A person shall cease to be liable under this Act to be recalled for service when he attains the age of sixty years.

THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE moved, in subsection (4), after "recalled" to insert "or retained." The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend, Viscount Bridgeman, I rise to move the Amendment which appears on the Marshalled List in his name and mine. The object of the Amendment is to clarify the position. As the clause stands, it appears that any man who is recalled, say, at the age of 58, would be retained after he had passed the age of 60. We should like to know what His Majesty's Government intend in this connection—whether the position is as I have stated, or whether the man would be released at the age of 60.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, after ("recalled") insert ("or retained").—(The Earl of Buckinghamshire.)

THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM)

I would like to begin by apologising for not being in the House when the noble Earl raised this matter just now. I can tell him that it is the definite intention of the Bill that a pensioner who is recalled shortly before the age of 60 should be liable to be retained in the Service in a period of emergency after he has attained the age of 60. That, I think, was the special concern of the noble Earl. The recalled naval pensioner is not released simply because he has passed the age limit for recall, and the effect of the Amendment would be to give the Army and Air Force pensioner an advantage compared with the naval pensioner. That, I imagine, is not the desire of noble Lords opposite, and I hope that in the circumstances they will think it right to withdraw this Amendment.

THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Occasion for and period of recall

2.—(1) A person liable under this Act to be recalled for service may be recalled at any time when men of the army reserve or air force reserve, as the case may be, are or are deemed to be called out on permanent service under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882.

(2) A person recalled for service under this Act shall be deemed to be enlisted in the regular forces or the regular air force, according as he was an army pensioner or an air force pensioner, for the period beginning with the time as from which he is so recalled and ending with such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the end of the emergency which was the occasion of the calling-out under the said Act of 1882 of men of the reserve in question.

THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE moved to add to subsection (1): or at other times with his consent and at the discretion of the appropriate service authority for training not exceeding seven days in any one year. The noble Earl said: I rise to move the first of the Amendments to Clause 2 which stand in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and myself. The object of the Amendment is to endeavour to make provision for the training of men in the use of new equipment for their protection against, say, such things as gas or atomic warfare. We feel that if this step were taken, they would have more confidence in the use of such equipment should an emergency arise. We appreciate—and indeed it is obvious—that they cannot be called up to do this training until an emergency arises, but we suggest that an opportunity should be given to them to attend voluntarily a course for (shall we say?) seven days, with full pay and allowances. We suggest that if some such step is not taken at once, confusion would inevitably arise when an emergency occurred. The plans which have been made would not produce the results intended, as they would be only paper plans. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Buckinghamshire.)

LORD PAKENHAM

I am grateful to the noble Earl for emphasising this point, which is one that certainly should not be overlooked. I would remind him that recalled pensioners will generally be employed in extra regimental appointments, involving duties mainly of an adminstrative character, and it is not likely that considerations such as the noble Earl has mentioned will arise on a large scale. It may be, as time passes, that it will prove that steps of the kind which the noble Earl has suggested should be taken. I would point out to him, however, that in that situation statutory authority is not necessary for the provision of courses of the kind he envisages. I repeat, I am grateful to the noble Earl for calling attention to the point, but I suggest for his consideration that legislative powers already exist, though of course provision for the money that would be needed to finance courses would have to be made in the Army or Air Force Estimates.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I thank the noble Lord opposite for dealing with this point as he has done, although I cannot fully agree with him when he suggests that cases of this kind are likely to be rare. That depends very much on the state of affairs in the future. Let me give two examples which, in fact, I gave on Second Reading. Suppose that some invention was adopted which altered the system of anti-gas protection, or that a new system of documenting a soldier in war-time was instituted which would alter the whole procedure in the administrative duties on which these pensioners would find themselves engaged. In such a case the alternatives would be to give the men some training before they were recalled or run the risk of chaos on mobilisation. The third position is this. From time to time (and more so in the future than in the past) the Services will want combined administrative exercises to test out arrangements for reinforcement camps at ports. There have been too few of these exercises in the past, and as time goes on these exercises will become more urgent. In most of these cases it has been necessary to provide machinery to enable these people to be called up voluntarily. I would like to see them compulsorily called up, but that might be difficult. We believe that all the right people will come forward voluntarily. Before we withdraw this Amendment I should like to be absolutely certain not merely, as the noble Lord has assured me, that it is not necessary to have statutory authority—I accept that—but also that this point is appreciated by the Service authorities and will be taken seriously.

LORD PAKENHAM

I know that it is taken seriously by the Service authorities with whom I have been in touch. I have not yet had an opportunity of speaking to my right honourable friend on this matter, but I will convey to him all that the noble Viscount has said and make sure that my right honourable friend pays careful attention to it.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, in subsection (2), after "air force pensioner" to insert: and, if on his original discharge he held a substantive or war substantive rank higher than that of private or equivalent, forthwith to have been promoted to that rank. The noble Viscount said: On the last two Amendments my noble friend and I adopted what I hoped was a conciliatory and friendly way of discussing them. In the case of this Amendment I feel a great deal more strongly, because I think that the War Office and the Air Ministry are trying here to do something which is wrong and which will have a bad effect, quite disproportionate to the advantages which they may derive from such an arrangement. It is true that as a matter of law the pensioner has been discharged and therefore can be called up—subject to this Bill becoming law—in any rank; and accordingly he would have no legal ground for complaint if he were called up in a rank lower than his previous one. No doubt some people think the law is an ass, and certainly these pensioners will think that the law is an ass if anybody attempts to call them up in lower ranks than those which the pensioners feel they have "for keeps."

I believe the argument on the other side is that there are more pensioners in the higher ranks than there are vacancies in those ranks in the war establishments. On paper this is all right, but in practice I think the Service Departments are attempting to do something which is very wrong. If their action produces even one disgruntled pensioner, or even a suspicion that the Service Departments are going to do something "dirty" to the pensioners, the time will come when the Departments will wish they had not played about with the pensioners' ranks. A particularly bad case would be if an ex-warrant officer in the Army or Air Force were called up into the rank of sergeant. Everybody who knew him would ask what had happened that he should have been taken down, and when the emergency arose that man, instead of being an asset, would be disgruntled, un-co-operative and everything we do not want.

We put down this Amendment, not because there is anything in the Bill about it but because of something said in another place on the intention of calling up pensioners, if necessary, in one rank lower. I would like to make a strong appeal to the noble Lord opposite to see that the Service Departments have nothing to do with that sort of thing. If they want a man, they should give him back his rank. If he is not worth his rank, he should not be called up; or, alternatively, should be called up and reduced for inefficiency. If there is no other way out, then the finance departments and the Treasury should agree to spend a little money and hold him supernumerary until he can be absorbed—and in war time he would be absorbed very quickly. I ask this not merely because I sit on these Benches but because I have a good deal of practical experience of what I am talking about. I hope the noble Lord will convey to his right honourable friends my appeal that they should have nothing more to do with this very foolish idea. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)

LORD PAKENHAM

I am well aware that the noble Viscount speaks from a great deal of experience in this field, and that he never uses words lightly on these matters. I would remind the Committee of one or two points of which the noble Viscount opposite is no doubt aware. Unlike an officer on retirement, a soldier or airman on discharge to pension ceases altogether to belong to the Armed Forces, and does not retain any rank. On recall, he must be "deemed to be enlisted," or actually enlisted in the lowest rank. Promotion thereafter is governed by Royal Warrant and the existence of vacancies in an establishment. It would not be appropriate to confer by Statute a right to promotion, and that is what would technically be happening under the noble Viscount's proposal. I would again remind the House that if an Army or Air Force pensioner were to be given a statutory right in this matter, it would give him an advantage not conferred by Statute on naval pensioners, and we are all agreed that we want to bring the three Services into line.

So far as a detailed plan for the employment of particular pensioners in particular employments can be made before the beginning of an emergency, it was the intention not to enlist a pensioner for recall unless his prospective employment would allow him to regain at once his last substantive, or war substantive, rank before he was pensioned; or, failing that, one rank lower. That has been our intention all along, and to disembarrass the noble Viscount of any further anxiety I would say that cases of the latter kind would be few and exceptional. In deference to the arguments advanced so forcibly by the noble Viscount, I am prepared to go further to-day, and to say that so far as the Army is concerned—like the noble Viscount, I choose my words carefully—a pensioner will not be listed in advance for recall in any rank lower than his own rank unless he himself consents to that course. I must point out, however, though I do not wish to take away with one hand what I am beginning to give with the other, that this administrative restriction on recall, which will be adopted in preparing the mobilisation scheme for the recall of pensioners, might become embarrassing as the emergency continued. If it were left in force, it might result in the Services being unable to fulfil certain very urgent requirements, and it would not be right to give an undertaking as to what would be done in conditions of extreme gravity. In view of the undertaking I have given (which I may say is exacted by the mixture of force and fraud employed by the noble Viscount opposite!), I beg him to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I can hardly resist the appeal of the noble Lord, particularly as he has met me on all essential points. I am glad that he has, because I am certain that what I have suggested is the right course for the Army and the Air Force. I would make only one short point in reply to what the noble Lord has said. I agree with everything that he has said about the disadvantages of putting this proposal into the Bill. Everything he said about the disadvantages of tying ourselves up before the emergency is also perfectly true. I accept that. But I do not think the noble Lord has been advised of the way to overcome the difficulty and, at the same time, to meet my point. I mentioned it in moving the Amendment and, with your Lordships' permission, I will repeat it.

It is perfectly possible, if the Government make financial provision for it, to call up a man in a rank higher than he can be used; and then, as the jargon goes, hold him supernumerary until he can be absorbed. Supposing, for example, that there is a vacancy for a sergeant, and that the only man available is a sergeant-major, you call up the man and pay him as sergeant-major to cover the job of sergeant in the war establishment, on the understanding that he tills the first vacancy for sergeant-major which comes along. That is what is done now in peace time, when N.C.O.s come back to the regimental establishment from the regimental list. Therefore, it is nothing new. Although I am not going to take this Amendment further, I would remind the noble Lord that there is a provision, and the War Office can meet both my point and their own if they adopt the system which I have just explained. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord will convey these remarks to his right honourable friend. Having said that, I again thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has met me over this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD PAKENHAM

I am grateful to the noble Viscount, and I will certainly see that this point is considered. He is always a welcome visitor in the War Office, and I feel sure there will be many opportunities of discussing matters in an amicable way in that famous building.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I will gladly take the opportunity.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PAKENHAM moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that notwithstanding anything in section seventy-six of the Army Act or section seventy-six of the Air Force Act any such person shall, if on his recall he so requires, be so enlisted for the said period in accordance with the provisions of section eighty of the Army Act or section eighty of the Air Force Act (which provide for the procedure on enlistment) as the case may require, and thereupon he shall not be deemed to have been enlisted by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection. The noble Lord said: I would like to begin by apologising for the mistake on the Marshalled List of Amendments, where the reference is to line 21. The object of this Amendment, which I foreshadowed on the Second Reading, is to give to a pensioner on joining the unit to which he is recalled for service the right to enlist in the ordinary way, if he so desires, instead of remaining a man "deemed to have been enlisted." I think I explained on Second Reading the point of the Amendment, and it appeared to be acceptable to noble Lords opposite. I beg to move

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 23, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Pakenham).

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

We agree that this Amendment is a good one, both administratively and psychologically, and we support it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Procedure for the recall of pensioners

"(4) Any notice under this section shall be deemed to be duly served on a person if it is sent to him by post addressed to his last known address.

Provided that no steps shall be taken against a person in respect of failure to comply with such a notice unless either it is proved that the notice was received by him or the notice was sent addressed as aforesaid by registered post; and where, in the case of a notice not sent by registered post, it appears to the appropriate Service Authority that the person to whom the notice relates may not have received the notice, the Authority may serve on him by registered post a subsequent notice superseding the original notice."

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, in the proviso to subsection (4), to leave out "either." The noble Viscount said: With the leave of the Committee I will deal with this Amendment and the next which stands in my name. The object of these Amendments is to clarify the position, which did not strike us as being absolutely clear after the discussion in another place. The object which we all have in mind is to make it impossible that a good, honest and meritorious pensioner should, through administrative inadvertence, start his new career in the Army by "having his hat off" and going on a charge to the company office. As the provision stood for service of notices, it was felt by some of my noble friends, and by myself, that, although it would be very unlucky and rather unusual, there was nevertheless the rule that it was possible to put a man on a charge without absolute proof that he had received the notice.

A further difficulty arises. As the noble Lord no doubt knows, when a man is absent his officer has no alternative but to charge him; otherwise the forfeiture of pay cannot be claimed under the Royal Warrant. Therefore, the officer cannot use his discretion about charging or not charging a man for absence in the same way that he can use his discretion in charging a man, or not charging him, with conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. That is why it is so important. It is by no means clear in the Bill (nor was it in the discussions in the other place) whether the intention of the Service Departments was to arrest the man if he failed to respond to one notice, or whether—which I now believe to be the fact—it was intended to send a second notice by registered post. If the second course were adopted, there would be no risk of a man's being arrested for absence, or whatever was coming to him, until he had failed to respond to two notices, one of which was sent by registered post. If the position is as I have explained it, that there are to be two notices, then obviously my noble friends and I can be satisfied with the present wording of the Bill. If, on the other hand, there is still the risk that a man might be arrested after only one notice, then I feel the position is not quite right, and I would ask the noble Lord to look into it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, leave out ("either").—(Viscount Bridgeman.)

LORD PAKENHAM

I am fairly confident that I can give the noble Viscount an assurance in the terms which he requires. He wants to be sure that there will be two notices, and that steps will not be taken until the man has failed to respond to the second notice. That is certainly intended, and that is the effect of the clause. Perhaps I can have a word with the noble Viscount afterwards to make sure that he is satisfied with all the implications (as I think he will be) of the procedure, because it is not a very easy business, as he is well aware, to avoid any possibility of injustice. However, I think we have, in fact, avoided it.

I will just point out generally that the machinery in view for the recall of pensioners is similar to that for the recall of Reservists under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882. In the case of a Reservist, if a notice sent by ordinary post is not complied with a further notice is sent by registered post, in order that evidence of delivery at his last known address may be obtained. In the case of a pensioner, the same procedure will be followed under Clause 3. But it is necessary to provide in this case that the second notice—that is the one sent by registered post—which will necessarily specify a fresh date for rejoining, should supersede the original notice. That is a technicality; it does not affect the noble Viscount's point, but I thought I would mention it.

The effect of the proviso in the Bill is to protect the pensioner against steps being taken for his arrest for failure to comply with the notice of recall unless, first, there is proof that the original notice sent by ordinary post, or personally delivered, was received by him; or, secondly, there is evidence furnished by the registered letter system, that the second notice has in fact been delivered at the pensioner's last known address. I would point out that although I have been referring hitherto to the conditions necessary to enable steps to be taken, a defaulting pensioner, or a pensioner who was alleged to be in default, could not be punished for failing to rejoin on recall, save in accordance with the provisions of the Army or Air Force Act, as the case may be; and he would not be charged with an offence unless there was prima facie evidence on which he could be convicted—in other words, there were circumstances in which steps might have to be taken to apprehend the man who would have an innocent explanation. That situation might conceivably arise.

Proof of failure to comply with a notice, in the sense of finding a man guilty of an offence, rests with the proper judicial authority, and the object of the first part of the proviso is to prevent the administrative authorities taking steps to apprehend a pensioner unless one or other of the conditions that I have mentioned is complied with. In practice, failure on the part of a pensioner to comply with a notice sent by registered post would not necessarily lead at once to his apprehension, as in the first place inquiries would be made at his address to ascertain the reason why he had not rejoined, and it might conceivably be found, as I suggested, that he had an innocent explanation. I thought it right to distinguish the steps that would have to be taken and the conviction that might or might not follow. I hope that the noble Viscount now feels that what I said at the beginning is right, and that the intention is that which he himself desires. In the circumstances, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN

I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for his full explanation, and I agree with him that he has made the matter clear. I thought there might be the odd chance of something going wrong. I think that anybody who did not behave properly would be very unlucky if he were caught. We cannot make these rules absolutely water-tight. If we attempted to do so, we should cause the whole machine to seize up, and therefore I am not going to try. I gladly respond to the invitation of the noble Lord to hold discussion outside this House. I thank him for the assurance he has given, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD PAKENHAM

I am grateful to the noble Viscount.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.