I move amendment No. 178:—
To delete all words from and including " if " in line 30 to " detention " in line 32, and substitute " a fine ".
According to the section a person who knowingly makes a false statement in respect of prolongation of leave of absence is guilty of an offence against military law, and is liable to suffer dismissal. That is too severe a punishment. It is the most human thing in the world to make a false statement in order to get an extra few days.
It is very often done.
I do not think that it is very serious.
Not in peace time.
On active service a false statement might enable a man to be absent from a conflict or dangerous mission. It is necessary, therefore, to maintain a serious maximum penalty although in the ordinary circumstances, of course, a lower penalty would be awarded. That is what we have to keep in mind, that there may be a necessity for the higher penalty. The possibilities of the higher penalty being imposed in ordinary circum-circumstances would be nil, but we should think of the extreme ease of avoiding a dangerous assignment and leave it as it is.
In that case he would be guilty of desertion. However, I do not think it matters very much.
There is always difficulty about active service provisions.
What we should have done in this Bill was to insert a special clause providing that if any of the offences are committed in peace time the maximum punishment shall be so much but if they are committed on active service the maximum punishment would be more.
Another way—but it would mean going back over all these things—would be to have separate qualifications for peace time and to provide that the maximum penalty for the offence in peace time would be so much and on active service something else.
