§ Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any punishment equally efficacious and adequate could be substituted on active service for field punishment No. 1; the nature of offences for which that punishment is inflicted; whether it is carried out without any danger or personal injury; and what would be the alternative in the event of its discontinuance?
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSIn accordance with Section 44 (5) of the Army Act, and subject to the Secretary of State's rules made thereunder, field punishment No. 1 or No. 2 may be awarded, on active service only, for any offence. The Army Act lays down that
such field punishment 6hall be of the character of personal restraint or of hard labour, but 6hall not be of a nature to cause injury to life or limb.The Army Council consider that no punishment equally efficacious and adequate could be substituted for these punishments without involving either an increase in severity, or an interference with the effective conduct of active operations. The matter was specially considered by a Committee which, under the presidency of the Judge Advocate-General, has recently reviewed the Army Act. Their recommendation in favour of the retention of field punishment No. 1 is as follows:The Committee consider that the question of the retention or abolition of field punishment No. 1 is one depending mainly on whether any other punishment can be devised to take its place which is suitable and effective on active service. The views of officers commanding in various theatres of war were obtained by the Army Council. These strongly support the necessity of retaining fisld punishment No. 1, and this view is endorsed by the Service members of the Committee. No suitable alternative punishment, which has the support of military and Air Force opinion, has been suggested to the Committee. In these circumstances, they do not feel that they are in a position to recommend the abolition of field punishment No. 1.