§ 5.45 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. I do not imagine that the House wishes me to make this the occasion for a general review of military affairs, and therefore, while I will attempt to deal with points that may be raised in discussion, I will venture to be fairly brief and to stick to the clauses of the Bill. The Preamble is in the usual form, and so is Clause 1. Clause 2 is in the usual form adopted in recent years, except that one subsection which has been included since 1940 has been omitted for a reason which I will explain in a moment in relation to Clause 3. Clause 3 is a drafting clause to tidy up the drafting of the Annual Bill 1145 in future. It relates to the date of bringing into operation the Amendments which the Bill introduces into the Army and Air Force Acts. Clause 4 amends Section 63 (2) of the Army Act and the corresponding Section 63 (2) of the Air Force Act. In the case of the Army Act, Section 63 (2) at present provides that soldiers undergoing sentences of detention shall serve their sentences "in a detention barrack or in military custody." The term "military custody" includes custody in a detention room in ordinary barracks. A soldier may also be in military custody in a hospital, for example, and when under escort; but the main application of Clause 4 will be to detention rooms. This clause provides for a reciprocal use by the two Services of their detention rooms, and it is a forward step in the policy of making sure that the Services should assist each other so far as possible in the administrative arrangements for meeting their common requirements. The reciprocal use of detention barracks is already provided for under Sections 68 (2) of the Army Act and the Air Force Act.
Coming to Clause 5, we find that subsection (1) makes the rules affecting persons in military prisons and detention barracks, in so far as they relate to the work such persons may be required to do, their earning of remission of sentence by good behaviour and their discipline, and also the conditions of temporary release, applicable to such persons when they are "in other military custody." Such "other military custody" means custody in barrack detention rooms, or in hospital or in transit pending committal to prison or detention barracks. The clause also applies, in relation to such other military custody, the rules for military prisons and detention barracks concerning punishment of persons who are not prisoners. Subsection (2) of the clause amends the Air Force Act correspondingly.
The provisions of Clause 6, which affect persons who are unlawfully at large when under sentence awarded by court-martial or by commanding officers, correspond generally to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, relating to persons who are unlawfully at large when under sentence awarded by the civil courts. I am sorry to strike this penal note, and I hope that anyone who has come here to-day casually to our discus- 1146 sion, with the object of discovering a general picture of life in the British Army, will not imagine that this is a characteristic version of what is going on at the present time. At the same time, I must concern myself with the Bill.
The Criminal Justice Act, 1948, in Section 65, provides, first, that any person sentenced to imprisonment, preventive detention, and so on, who is unlawfully at large may be arrested by a constable without warrant; and secondly, that in calculating the period in which such a person is liable to be detained, no account shall be taken of any time during which he is absent from the prison, and so on, unless the Secretary of State directs; and this is subject to the proviso that account shall nevertheless be taken of any period during which the person is detained in pursuance of the sentence, or in pursuance of any other sentence of any court, in a prison or other institution to which the Prison Acts apply.
Subsection (1) of the new section of the Army and Air Force Acts introduced by this clause enables a constable to arrest without warrant and take into custody a person who is unlawfully at large when serving a sentence of imprisonment awarded by a court-martial. Subsections (2) and (3) of the new section introduced by this clause make various provisions, but there are two differences from the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act. One is that, instead of the dispensing authority being the Secretary of State, the dispensing authority in the case of a person sentenced by court-martial will be the same authority as is empowered under the Act to remit the sentence, and in the case of a person sentenced to detention by his commanding officer—this is a point that will interest the noble Viscount opposite—the dispensing authority will be the commanding officer, who has power to remit punishments summarily awarded.
The other difference is that, whereas under the Criminal Justice Act the sentence of the civil court does not begin to run again until the person is again detained in a prison or other institution to which the Prison Acts apply, the clause provides that the sentence in the case of the soldier or airman may begin to run again as soon as he is taken into military or air force or naval custody. I do not know whether the noble Viscount would wish me to elaborate that point further. 1147 In the case of civilian prisoners, the practical difficulty of ascertaining the dates of custody with certainty was a determining factor in the decision that sentences would not begin to run again until the prisoner was back in prison, instead of when he was again in custody. In the case of the Services, no such difficulty will arise.
The power of dispensation is necessary in order to avoid possible injustice. The man, while unlawfully at large, might, for example, meet with a serious accident entailing treatment in hospital. He might be detained for trial and sentenced by a civil court for some fresh offence committed when unlawfully at large. In such cases, where the length of the period of absence from custody is beyond the man's control, there will be discretion to allow some or all of the period to count as part of the sentence. I think it is right to place these provisions on record from this place at this time of the year, but if there are wider or narrower issues which the noble Viscount opposite wishes to raise, and if, to-day or later, I am able to give any information on those issues, I will attempt to oblige the noble Viscount. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
§ Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
§ 5.52 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANMy Lords, I think that noble Lords on these Benches would wish me first of all to congratulate the noble Lord opposite on the ease and the skill with which he has switched from the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill to the measure at present under discussion. The details of the later clauses of this Bill were clearly explained by the noble Lord, and I shall have little to say on them. Before I come to those clauses, however, there are one or two general matters to which at this time of the year I ought to refer, quite shortly. One must read this Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill in conjunction with the debates on the Budget in another place, where we were clearly told that provision on a large scale was being made for National Defence, including the Army, and that that provision might have to be even greater than it is now. Therefore, we come to the question of the wise spending of that money, a question we 1148 have often mentioned in this House and which I think we shall go on mentioning time after time, even at the risk of boring your Lordships.
When this Bill was being debated in another place, some of my right honourable friends raised again this question of transfers. If I may say so, they obtained from the Secretary of State this year a very much fuller and more favourable answer on this question of transfers than they obtained when they discussed the matter a year ago. I am glad of that—for more than one reason. This question of transfers really becomes acute when the people in the War Office—and for all I know in the Air Ministry too—who have to deal with postings are working on too narrow margins and, therefore, cannot put people in the right places. If we are receiving more favourable answers from the Secretary of State, I hope it means that the margins upon which the postings people are working are becoming a little wider and, therefore, that Regular recruiting is beginning to improve in the way in which we all hope that it will, because all these troubles, whatever the symptoms on the surface may be, come down to this main question of Regular recruiting. Once we have enough Regular soldiers and airmen, we shall put the matter right. Until then, we shall always have these transfers and we shall always be tempted to treat the transfers, so to speak, by putting the ointment on the measles rather than by going to the root cause. So I take this opportunity of saying once again to the noble Lords opposite how very anxious we are to see every possible step taken to co-operate in every possible way in this business of recruiting for the Regular Army.
I should like to make a further point. I have not given the noble Lord opposite notice of this point, so I do not expect an answer. I would ask him, and ask him to question his right honourable friend, about all the excuses given for not providing the Army with a No. 1 dress, which proposal went right through all stages of approval two or three years ago. The objections at the time were based on the existence of rationing for clothing. Rationing for clothing has now gone. Therefore, one reason for not dealing fairly with the Regular soldier and providing him with a No. 1 dress has gone.
Like its predecessors, this Bill is concerned largely with morale and discipline. 1149 I very much agree with what the noble Lord opposite said: that when we are discussing this Bill, we are tempted to make it appear that the Army is one large guard room and that the only people who are politically interesting are the deserters or the conscientious objectors to the National Service Act. That should not be in our minds. We should concentrate on anything that will make life happier for the soldier in the Army and make him more anxious to re-enlist or to persuade his friends to enlist. We are now reaching a situation where this question of morale is even more important than it was a year ago, because within a year the first of the National Service men will be going into the Territorial Army. I am not going to stray into the paths of the Territorial Army this evening. But I mention this for one reason—that before long we hope there will be a Bill dealing with the bringing up to date of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act.
I would say just this: the morale of those National Service men who first come out and join the Territorial Army in a year's time will largely set the pitch for morale in the Territorial Army. I believe that this is the time to say so. This question of frustration, and so forth, is caused by treating the Regular soldier badly, by having too few people to post properly, by giving them money which is just not sufficient for the job in hand. Anybody who is a judge of soldiers can see that showing itself as he looks at soldiers these days walking in the streets. There is an obvious variation in self-respect as between one soldier and another. Some of them walk about as if they were pleased to wear the King's uniform; others have not cleaned their clothes for weeks. So let us concentrate on that for this year as part of the plans not only for improving the Regular Army, but for making the Territorial Army what it ought to be.
That prompts me to ask the noble Lord opposite one question of which I have given him notice. Two years ago, in the discussion on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, we agreed unanimously to try in peace time a system called "military corrective establishments," dealing in a special way with young offenders. Since that Bill passed into law, we have heard nothing about those military corrective establishments. 1150 I ask the noble Lord opposite whether he will be good enough to give us some sort of a situation report as to whether the steps that we took two years ago have been justified, whether those military corrective establishments are doing the work which was expected of them.
Now, my Lords, to come very shortly, to the clauses in the Bill. They were clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and I have little to say about them. But generally I am bound to say that they do not present a very satisfactory appearance. They look too much like patchwork. I can sense that in most cases their origin was probably due to the fact that a particular individual had escaped justice because of a technical fault in the drafting of the Act, and that the "hole" was hurriedly blocked. Every year at this time, when I rise at this Box, I make the point that we shall never get these things right until there is another overhaul, a proper consolidation, of the Acts affecting military service. We who are interested in the Services look forward to the time when that very fine group of consolidators who work under the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to give their attention to this part of the law of the land. But for the moment we know that a great deal depends on the Lewis Report; and Lewis, in his turn, depends on Pilcher. And once again I say how pleased we shall be when those matters can be explored.
Lastly, my Lords, we always try to say when we think a thing is good, as well as when we think it is bad, and I would like to say how pleased we are at any sign of the Army and the Air Force working together, at any sign that the Minister of Defence is discharging his functions. Of course, we should be pleased if the Navy were to come in too; but we are thankful for small mercies! That, I think, is all I need say to-night about this Bill. The noble Lord gave me an assurance on a drafting point in Clause 6 which entirely satisfied me, and as a result we shall not wish to take up the time of the House with the further stages of the Bill.
§ 6.3 p.m.
§ LORD CALVERLEYMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Pakenham has been at the wicket for three and a quarter hours, and has done a fine job of "stone- 1151 walling"; and I will not detain your Lordships very long. When the debate on this Bill took place in another place, there was some concern about something which the noble Viscount opposite has touched upon, and which some of us with territorial connections would like to see preserved—namely, that so far as possible the identity and traditions of the territorial regiments should be preserved with the modern set-up of our British Army. Only to-day I noticed the publication of a history in regard to the Lancashire Fusiliers—and I could go on similarly with the other regiments: the Northumberlands, the Duke of Wellingtons, the Yorkshires, the Green Howards. I believe that psychologically we should have a much better chance of recruiting the men, both for the Territorial Army and the Regular Army, if they knew that they were to be recruited into the regiments with which they are associated. In another place, the Minister gave a fairly satisfactory response, and my purpose in intervening this evening is to see whether my noble friend Lord Pakenham can reemphasise, in order to help recruiting both for the Territorials and for the Regular Army, that the identity and traditions of these regiments of ours shall so far as possible be preserved.
I am glad the noble Viscount referred to what he called the corrective establishments. During the war years I was intimately connected with the foundation of what we call the young soldiers' camps, and I spent a lot of time with these young soldiers. Instead of putting them in the detention barracks as we know them, the experiment was started, I believe, by Sir Ronald Adam, when he was Officer Commanding-in-Chief Northern Command, and afterwards as Adjutant-General he tried to expand it. I should like to think that this form of corrective punishment, which was positive, was being carried on. During the war, out of these boys, all of them under the age of twenty-one, 60 to 70 per cent. made good, and it was a valuable experiment which is well worth continuing. When I visit a civil prison, I see far too many young fellows, soldiers under the age of twenty-one. I agree that some of them are deserters who, because they have no ration cards or identity cards, find themselves in a civil prison. If the Army Council could find some way to 1152 make use of these young fellows under the age of twenty-one, it would be far better than sending them to a civil prison or to the ordinary detention barracks as we know them. Without wishing to place an undue burden upon my noble friend who is handling this Bill, I ask merely whether he can reassure us that in our Territorial associations these regiments—the "P.B.I." most of them—which are so necessary as the bedrock foundation of the British Army, are to be preserved so far as possible. I think that psychologically that would have a great effect. I also hope that my noble friend will be able to say something with regard to the corrective establishments.
§ 6.8 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, I do not know whether it is necessary, but if it is I will certainly agree to emphasise yet again from this place the supreme value that the Government attach to the maintenance of the regimental tradition. Turning to the debate, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Viscount who speaks for the Opposition, for the reception that he has given to this Bill. I imagine that I would probably suit the convenience of the House by confining myself to a fairly detailed reply, which will, however, not take very long, to the question put to me about military corrective establishments, and, with the permission of the House, that is what I propose to do.
The military corrective establishment system has now been in operation for about eighteen months. The system was designed to separate those men under sentence who were of further potential use to the Army from those who were not, and to turn out the former as better soldiers in all respects after serving all or part of their sentences. After a soldier has been sentenced, his commanding officer may commit him either to a military corrective establishment or to a military prison and detention barracks. The main factor guiding the commanding officer is whether or not he considers that the soldier should be discharged from the Army after serving his sentence. Generally, all soldiers awarded sentences of detention necessitating commitment to a military penal establishment serve the first two such sentences in military corrective establishments. It would 1153 seem, therefore, that on the first two occasions that a man goes astray hope is not given up and he is sent to a military corrective establishment.
Military corrective establishments are divided into three stages of progressively increasing privileges. A high standard of discipline is, however, demanded throughout. Work carried out consists almost entirely of military and educational training. Progress through the stages is decided by the soldier's own responsiveness to the treatment, and not by his proficiency at military training. Generally, short sentences (of up to twenty-eight days) are served entirely in the first stage. After four to six months, long sentences are normally suspended after a satisfactory period (generally about a month) in the third stage. With the permission of the House I will have published in the OFFICIAL REPORT a note on the distribution of military corrective establishments throughout the world.
I know that the House will want to know what has been the effect of all this and whether we can judge how the system is working. In view of the comparatively short time that it has been in operation, it is difficult yet to estimate its success or otherwise. An analysis of the records of a number of soldiers who have passed through the military corrective establishment at Colchester is at present being made, and will throw some light on the question. The general consensus of opinion, however, is that the system is an improvement on the previous one. No one wishes to be dogmatic about details, but I think I ought to mention two main difficulties which have arisen. The first is the application of the system in small overseas commands—the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman will appreciate that difficulty, I am sure. The second difficulty is the provision of suitable staff.
Of these two difficulties, the second presents considerably the greater problem—perhaps rather to the surprise of some. The type of officer and N.C.O. required is the expert in man management—which is synonymous with the best type of regimental officer and N.C.O. There is no type of officer and N.C.O. who is presumably suited especially for this sort of work who is not extremely valuable elsewhere. These first-class officers and N.C.Os. are wanted everywhere. I should mention that, in addition, there are few induce- 1154 ments to attract them as volunteers into this somewhat unpleasant type of unit, where they will be dealing almost entirely with bad soldiers. The pre-war attraction for N.C.Os. was extra duty pay and a guarantee of married quarters. At the present time it is difficult to provide either in a satisfactory degree. The main attraction at present is that the minimum rank in the Corps that deals with these soldiers is sergeant, which often involves promotion on transfer to the Corps. Whether in that way one always gets the best men is debatable.
Admissions to the military corrective establishment at Colchester show a high proportion of men serving a first sentence in such a unit, and admissions to the military prison and detention barracks at Shepton Mallet have been showing a very gradual but steady decline. We can draw some encouragement from that. It therefore seems that the number of persistent offenders is on the decrease, which points towards the system's success. It is hoped that a much fuller picture will be obtained later on when the results of the analysis now being conducted are available. I felt that the House would wish to have a reply on that matter. It gives certain grounds for sober confidence, but, of course, we must not begin claiming too soon that we have provided the right answer to the problem.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his full and informative reply, but may I ask, before he sits down, whether, in addition to publishing a note in the OFFICIAL REPORT on the distribution of military corrective establishments, he will consider also giving some statistics relating to the number of solders who have passed through them?
LORD PAKENHAMI will certainly consider that and will promise to do my best to meet the noble Viscount's request.
I feel, in a way, that this has been rather cursory treatment of a Bill which affects the Army so profoundly. But there will be other opportunities, of which the House will no doubt take full advantage, of referring to this matter, for we are all at one in wishing to do all in our power to assist the Army in every possible way. With your permission I will now conclude my remarks by ex- 1155 pressing the hope that you will give the Bill a Second Reading.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.