THE CASE OF ABLE SEAMAN FIELD (Hansard, 20 February 1968)

§ Lord BROCKWAY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON)
My Lords, Able Seaman Field was not tried by court-martial. He was tried summarily and sentenced to dismissal from Her Majesty's Service and 60 days detention. He will also be serving the 236 days suspended sentence arising from a previous court-martial conviction.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, while I appreciate that reply and thank my noble friend for it, does he appreciate that I am not raising this issue on the ground of conscientious objection? This boy is an Amateur Boxing Association finalist. Is my noble friend aware that I am raising this Question on the ground of the repeated refusal of discharge by purchase? Could he say whether this boy's sentence before he is discharged, of 60 days and 236 days lost remission, means that he will be discharged before that long period is over?

§ Lord SHACKLETON
My Lords, I am certainly aware that Able Seaman Field is not a conscientious objector. He wished to leave the Navy in order to pursue his career as a boxer. Of the two sentences he is now serving, the 60 days relate to his last sentence, when he was tried summarily, and the 236 days are from a previous sentence, when he was 312 court-martialled for an assault on his commanding officer at the time of his previous appearance before that officer. I am not quite clear what my noble friend is asking. I can only say that this man will have to serve his sentence, with such remissions as he may obtain for good conduct. It is true that he had hoped to be released from the Service at an earlier date in order to pursue his career. Later on there was a possibility of release on compassionate grounds, but they were not strong enough.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, is this not a case of a boy of 15 joining the Service under pressure from his family, who have a record of service in the Armed Forces? Is it not the case that his father, who had long service in the Navy, is now in a condition of mental disturbance because of what is happening to his son? Is it not the case that his brother has offered to replace him? And is it not scandalous that boys of 15 should have to serve these long periods in the Services and that when they ask to get out they are repeatedly refused that possibility, even when they are prepared to purchase their discharge, but have to undergo these long sentences?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I have great sympathy with what my noble friend has said, and I would agree with him in the first of his cases. As to whether this is scandalous, may I say that the matter has to be looked at in the context of this young man's career. He did not ask to be released from the Navy until he was 21, when he was long past the age of being a boy and at a time when he might equally well have entered into a long engagement. I know that my noble friend is pursuing a fundamental issue, which we have already debated in your Lordships' House and which is now under consideration by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration. In relation to the broad principle with which my noble friend is concerned, I can only say that it is being again considered.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, apart from the other points that my noble friend has brought up—and I heartily agree with him on the question of principle—one aspect of the case is 313 very disturbing. If my noble friend decided to discharge a man because he wished to be a boxer, would he not be creating a most curious precedent? Could he tell me what he is going to do with other boys who want to pursue perhaps more worthwhile professions and ask to be discharged?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. My right honourable friend, of course, has refused to discharge this Able Seaman because he wanted to be a boxer. When I was in the Air Ministry I was once asked to release a very successful "pop" group. In both of those cases the men concerned might earn foreign exchange, but that would not be an adequate reason. It is simply because it would create an undesirable—in fact, an unacceptable—precedent that we cannot single out one career which might have to be postponed. Many of these young men, when in the course of their training it becomes apparent that the Navy or Army is not for them, are allowed to go. The effect of Able Seaman Field's actions is that he will be released from the Service slightly later than he would have been if he had waited for the ordinary procedure to operate.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
My Lords, could my noble friend say whether these two sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, the 60 days is the more recent award of punishment and, as always happens in the case of somebody under suspended sentence, the remainder of the suspended sentence will be served, but there is a prospect of remission in the light of good behaviour.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I ask whether it is not the case that Able Seaman Field has now 60 days to do plus the 236 days' lost remission? In view of this complicated situation, would my noble friend inform us when it will be possible for this man to obtain remission and to obtain the discharge that he has been seeking ever since he was 21 years of age?

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, as a quick calculation—it was 236 days—I make it that, with full remission, he will 314 serve a combined total of 198½ days. However, I should not like to be bound absolutely by that quick calculation. I cannot state the exact date that he will be released because it will depend on whether he earns remission. If the noble Lord wishes me to give an estimate of it, assuming that remission is earned, I will try to do so. But it will not be an official figure, because it is bound to be hypothetical.